# Official Journal C 48/8 Fe

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 48 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 598 February 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 48

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 598 February 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2016/C 048/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2016/C 048/01

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2016/C 048/02 | Case C-595/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(6) — Special investment funds — Meaning — Investments in immovable property — Management of special investment funds — Meaning — Actual management of a property) | 2 |
| 2016/C 048/03 | Case C-350/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trieste — Italy) — Florin Lazar v Allianz SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation No 864/2007 — Article 4(1) — Concepts of country in which the damage occurs, damage and indirect consequences of the tort or delict — Damage sustained personally by a family member of a person who died as a result of a road traffic accident — Applicable law) | 3 |
| 2016/C 048/04 | Case C-427/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas, Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Veloserviss SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Post-clearance examination of declarations — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination — Powers — Decision on the first post-clearance examination — Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision) | 3 |
| 2016/C 048/05 | Case C-552/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Canon Europa NV v European Commission (Appeal — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 — Actions for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties — Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques) | 4 |
| 2016/C 048/06 | Case C-553/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission (Appeal — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 — Actions for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties — Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques) | 4 |
| 2016/C 048/07 | Case C-594/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 4(1) — Determination of the applicable law — Legislation of a Member State laying down the obligation for a managing director of a company to reimburse that company for the payments made after it had become insolvent — Application of that legislation to a company established in another Member State — Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — None) | 5 |
| 2016/C 048/08 | Case C-603/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for the word mark The English Cut — Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word and figurative marks including the word elements El Corte Inglés — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(5) — Risk that the relevant public will make a connection with a trade mark which has a reputation — Degree of similarity required) | 6 |
| 2016/C 048/09 | Case C-183/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Sub-heading 9027 10 10 — Ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers — Handheld particle counters) | 6 |
| 2016/C 048/10 | Case C-190/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM | 7 |
| 2016/C 048/11 | Case C-206/15 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2015 by Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-78/13: Red Bull v OHIM | 7 |
| 2016/C 048/12 | Case C-422/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2015 by Fernando Brás Messias against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2015 in Case T-192/15 Fernando Brás Messias v Portuguese Republic | 8 |
| 2016/C 048/13 | Case C-425/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Udo Voigt v President of the European Parliament, European Parliament | 8 |
| 2016/C 048/14 | Case C-533/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj | 8 |
| 2016/C 048/15 | Case C-541/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Mircea Florian Freitag | 9 |
| 2016/C 048/16 | Case C-551/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 23 October 2015 — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Kalus Tederahn | 9 |
| 2016/C 048/17 | Case C-561/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann v TUIfly GmbH | 10 |
| 2016/C 048/18 | Case C-574/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese (Italy) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone | 10 |
| 2016/C 048/19 | Case C-590/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alain Laurent Brouillard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-420/13, Brouillard v Court of Justice | 11 |
| 2016/C 048/20 | Case C-600/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 November 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; Other party: Lemnis Lighting BV | 13 |
| 2016/C 048/21 | Case C-610/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Stichting Brein, Other parties: Ziggo BV and XS4ALL Internet BV | 13 |
| 2016/C 048/22 | Case C-612/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Kolev and Others | 14 |
| 2016/C 048/23 | Case C-613/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas (Spain) lodged on 20 November 2015 — Ibercaja Banco S.A.U. v José Cortés González | 17 |
| 2016/C 048/24 | Case C-620/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden) | 18 |
| 2016/C 048/25 | Case C-621/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 –W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Caisse Carpimko | 18 |
| 2016/C 048/26 | Case C-624/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Litdana UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos | 19 |
| 2016/C 048/27 | Case C-637/15 P: Appeal brought on 01 December 2015 by VSM Geneesmiddelen BV against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-578/14: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission | 20 |
| 2016/C 048/28 | Case C-646/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 3 December 2015 — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs | 22 |
| 2016/C 048/29 | Case C-649/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2015 by TV2/Danmark A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission | 23 |
| 2016/C 048/30 | Case C-650/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2015 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 25/09/2015 in Case T-268/10 RENV: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) | 25 |
| 2016/C 048/31 | Case C-654/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek | 26 |
| 2016/C 048/32 | Case C-656/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission | 27 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 048/33 | Case T-9/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air Canada v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 29 |
| 2016/C 048/34 | Case T-28/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 30 |
| 2016/C 048/35 | Case T-36/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Japan Airlines v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 31 |
| 2016/C 048/36 | Case T-38/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 32 |
| 2016/C 048/37 | Case T-39/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 33 |
| 2016/C 048/38 | Case T-40/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 34 |
| 2016/C 048/39 | Case T-43/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 35 |
| 2016/C 048/40 | Case T-46/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 36 |
| 2016/C 048/41 | Case T-48/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — British Airways v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 37 |
| 2016/C 048/42 | Case T-56/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 38 |
| 2016/C 048/43 | Case T-62/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France-KLM v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 39 |
| 2016/C 048/44 | Case T-63/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 40 |
| 2016/C 048/45 | Case T-67/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Martinair Holland v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons) | 41 |
| 2016/C 048/46 | Case T-73/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment) | 41 |
| 2016/C 048/47 | Case T-75/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Polska v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment) | 42 |
| 2016/C 048/48 | Case T-108/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Russia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Product concerned) | 43 |
| 2016/C 048/49 | Case T-241/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from the financing — Beef and beef products — Sheepmeat and goatmeat — Tobacco — Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004) | 44 |
| 2016/C 048/50 | Joined Cases T-381/13 and T-382/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM (DAISY and MARGARITAS) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word marks DAISY and MARGARITAS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Partial refusal to register — No distinctive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 45 |
| 2016/C 048/51 | Case T-491/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Intercontinental Great Brands (TRIDENT PURE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TRIDENT PURE — Earlier Community, national, international and Benelux figurative and word marks PURE WHITE, mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH, PURE, PURE FRESH, mentos PURE FRESH and mentos PURE WHITE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 46 |
| 2016/C 048/52 | Case T-138/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Chart v EEAS (Non-contractual liability — Local member of staff assigned to the EU delegation in Egypt — Expiry of contract — Failure by the EU delegation to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the official to the social security services of the Egyptian administration and to subsequently regularise the latter’s situation in that regard — Limitation — Continuing damage — Partial inadmissibility — Principle of good administration — Reasonable period of time — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Sufficiently serious infringement of a legal rule conferring rights on individuals — Quantifiable damage — Causal link) | 46 |
| 2016/C 048/53 | Case T-356/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríguez (Kerashot) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Kerashot — Earlier national figurative mark K KERASOL — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal) | 47 |
| 2016/C 048/54 | Case T-521/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Sweden v Commission (Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Action for failure to act — Specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties — Failure by the Commission to adopt delegated acts — Duty to act) | 48 |
| 2016/C 048/55 | Case T-63/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 49 |
| 2016/C 048/56 | Case T-64/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on pants) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on pants — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 49 |
| 2016/C 048/57 | Case T-128/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark RED RIDING HOOD — Earlier national and international word marks ROTKÄPPCHEN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 50 |
| 2016/C 048/58 | Case T-584/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 December 2015 — POA v Commission (Application for interim measures — Publication of an application for registration of a protected designation of origin — Halloumi or Hellim — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 51 |
| 2016/C 048/59 | Case T-671/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — E-Control v ACER (Application for interim measures — Opinion on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Infringement of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility) | 51 |
| 2016/C 048/60 | Case T-603/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission | 52 |
| 2016/C 048/61 | Case T-639/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Psara v Parliament | 53 |
| 2016/C 048/62 | Case T-640/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Kristan v Parliament | 54 |
| 2016/C 048/63 | Case T-641/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Malle v Parliament | 55 |
| 2016/C 048/64 | Case T-642/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Cieśla v Parliament | 56 |
| 2016/C 048/65 | Case T-643/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Dahllof v Parliament | 57 |
| 2016/C 048/66 | Case T-644/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Reuter v Parliament | 58 |
| 2016/C 048/67 | Case T-645/15: Action brought on 13/11/2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament | 59 |
| 2016/C 048/68 | Case T-646/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Karanikas v Parliament | 60 |
| 2016/C 048/69 | Case T-647/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament | 61 |
| 2016/C 048/70 | Case T-648/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament | 62 |
| 2016/C 048/71 | Case T-649/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Toth v Parliament | 63 |
| 2016/C 048/72 | Case T-650/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Knus-Galán v Parliament | 64 |
| 2016/C 048/73 | Case T-651/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tchobanov v Parliament | 65 |
| 2016/C 048/74 | Case T-653/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Mulvad v Parliament | 66 |
| 2016/C 048/75 | Case T-654/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament | 67 |
| 2016/C 048/76 | Case T-655/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — van der Parre v Parliament | 68 |
| 2016/C 048/77 | Case T-656/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baggi v Parliament | 69 |
| 2016/C 048/78 | Case T-657/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament | 70 |
| 2016/C 048/79 | Case T-658/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — García Rey v Parliament | 71 |
| 2016/C 048/80 | Case T-659/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Hunter v Parliament | 72 |
| 2016/C 048/81 | Case T-660/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Clerix v Parliament | 73 |
| 2016/C 048/82 | Case T-661/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Araujo v Parliament | 74 |
| 2016/C 048/83 | Case T-662/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Delić v Parliament | 75 |
| 2016/C 048/84 | Case T-663/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament | 76 |
| 2016/C 048/85 | Case T-664/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Borg v Parliament | 77 |
| 2016/C 048/86 | Case T-665/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament | 78 |
| 2016/C 048/87 | Case T-666/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Bačelić v Parliament | 79 |
| 2016/C 048/88 | Case T-669/15: Action brought on 09 October 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA | 80 |
| 2016/C 048/89 | Case T-683/15: Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission | 81 |
| 2016/C 048/90 | Case T-686/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl) | 82 |
| 2016/C 048/91 | Case T-687/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava/OHMI — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl) | 83 |
| 2016/C 048/92 | Case T-689/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl) | 84 |
| 2016/C 048/93 | Case T-690/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé) | 85 |
| 2016/C 048/94 | Case T-691/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl) | 86 |
| 2016/C 048/95 | Case T-703/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT) | 86 |
| 2016/C 048/96 | Case T-101/13: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission | 87 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2016/C 048/97 | Case F-45/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2009 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate) | 88 |
| 2016/C 048/98 | Case F-37/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Report of the Investigation Panel — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint — Annulment — Action for compensation) | 88 |
| 2016/C 048/99 | Case F-82/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — New 2007 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate) | 89 |
| 2016/C 048/00 | Case F-55/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2011 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — No need to adjudicate) | 90 |
| 2016/C 048/01 | Case F-104/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Report of the Investigation Panel — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint — Annulment — Action for compensation) | 90 |
| 2016/C 048/02 | Case F-9/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2012 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate) | 91 |
| 2016/C 048/03 | Case F-94/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Bowles v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Members of the Staff Committee — Remuneration — Salary — Additional increase in salary — Eligibility) | 92 |
| 2016/C 048/04 | Case F-95/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Seigneur v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Members of the Staff Committee — Remuneration — Salary — Additional increase in salary — Eligibility) | 92 |
| 2016/C 048/05 | Joined cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Clarke, Dickmanns and Papathanasiou v OHIM (Civil service — Temporary staff — OHIM staff — Fixed-term contract including a termination clause — Clause terminating a contract if the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition — Date of effect of the termination clause — OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 open competitions) | 93 |
| 2016/C 048/06 | Case F-134/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 17 December 2015 — T v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Causation — Claim for damages for the non-material harm suffered as a result of the delay taken by the institution to acknowledge the occupational origin of the sickness — Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time — Non-material damage) | 94 |
| 2016/C 048/07 | Case F-135/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — DE v EMA (Civil service — EMA staff — Placement on non-active status — Act adversely affecting an official or staff member — Right to be heard — Infringement) | 95 |
| 2016/C 048/08 | Case F-141/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Guittet v Commission (Civil service — Former official — Social security — Payment of medical expenses — Management of the medical file by the Commission — Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Non-contractual liability of the European Union) | 95 |
| 2016/C 048/09 | Case F-17/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Jäger-Waldau v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal — Appraisal report — Request for amendment — Refusal) | 96 |
| 2016/C 048/10 | Case F-34/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — De Loecker v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Temporary staff — Psychological harassment — Articles 12a and 24b of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Rejection — Request to open an administrative investigation — Right to be heard — Infringement) | 96 |
| 2016/C 048/11 | Case F-88/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Bonazzi v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion exercise 2014 — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directorates-General and the services — Omission of the applicant’s name — Whether the list of officials proposed for promotion may be challenged before the Joint Promotion Committee — Failure to define a position by the Joint Promotion Committee — Consideration of comparative merits made by the appointing authority alone) | 97 |
| 2016/C 048/12 | Case F-128/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2010 staff report — Contested — Internal procedures — Conditions — Withdrawal — Action — Lack of locus standi — Reasonable time — Failure to comply — Manifestly inadmissible) | 98 |
| 2016/C 048/13 | Case F-76/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — López Cabeza v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/248/13 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Insufficient mark in the assessment centre tests — Action for annulment — Breach of the competition notice — Illegality of a test) | 98 |
| 2016/C 048/14 | Case F-118/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts — Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities — Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities — Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure — No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure) | 99 |
| 2016/C 048/15 | Case F-136/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 December 2015 — Probst v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Former parliamentary assistant — Commission’s decision to grant the expatriation allowance to former parliamentary assistants as of the date of publication of the information given to staff — Judgments annulling a measure — Substantial new facts — Limited temporal effect — Res judicata — Administrative decisions which have become final — Equal treatment) | 100 |
| 2016/C 048/16 | Case F-24/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Di Marzio v Council (Civil service — Contractual agent — Function group I — Reclassification of a contract into a contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite term at Grade AST 3, AST 4 or AST 5 or into a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite term in function group III — Articles 2, 3a, 3b, 80 and 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure) | 100 |
| 2016/C 048/17 | Case F-45/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 December 2015 — Van der Veen v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Member of the temporary staff — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Europol’s refusal to sign a contract for an indefinite period — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly inadmissible) | 101 |
| 2016/C 048/18 | Case F-144/15: Action brought on 23 November 2015 — ZZ v EASA | 102 |
| 2016/C 048/19 | Case F-30/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — Diamantopoulos v EEAS | 102 |
| 2016/C 048/20 | Case F-58/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — FW v Commission | 102 |
| 2016/C 048/21 | Case F-129/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — Morin v Commission | 102 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 048/02

Case C-595/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(6) — Special investment funds — Meaning — Investments in immovable property — Management of special investment funds — Meaning — Actual management of a property)

2

2016/C 048/03

Case C-350/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trieste — Italy) — Florin Lazar v Allianz SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation No 864/2007 — Article 4(1) — Concepts of country in which the damage occurs, damage and indirect consequences of the tort or delict — Damage sustained personally by a family member of a person who died as a result of a road traffic accident — Applicable law)

3

2016/C 048/04

Case C-427/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas, Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Veloserviss SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Post-clearance examination of declarations — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination — Powers — Decision on the first post-clearance examination — Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision)

3

2016/C 048/05

Case C-552/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Canon Europa NV v European Commission (Appeal — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 — Actions for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties — Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques)

4

2016/C 048/06

Case C-553/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission (Appeal — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 — Actions for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties — Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques)

4

2016/C 048/07

Case C-594/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 4(1) — Determination of the applicable law — Legislation of a Member State laying down the obligation for a managing director of a company to reimburse that company for the payments made after it had become insolvent — Application of that legislation to a company established in another Member State — Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — None)

5

2016/C 048/08

Case C-603/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for the word mark The English Cut — Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word and figurative marks including the word elements El Corte Inglés — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(5) — Risk that the relevant public will make a connection with a trade mark which has a reputation — Degree of similarity required)

6

2016/C 048/09

Case C-183/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Sub-heading 9027 10 10 — Ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers — Handheld particle counters)

6

2016/C 048/10

Case C-190/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM

7

2016/C 048/11

Case C-206/15 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2015 by Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-78/13: Red Bull v OHIM

7

2016/C 048/12

Case C-422/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2015 by Fernando Brás Messias against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2015 in Case T-192/15 Fernando Brás Messias v Portuguese Republic

8

2016/C 048/13

Case C-425/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Udo Voigt v President of the European Parliament, European Parliament

8

2016/C 048/14

Case C-533/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj

8

2016/C 048/15

Case C-541/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Mircea Florian Freitag

9

2016/C 048/16

Case C-551/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 23 October 2015 — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Kalus Tederahn

9

2016/C 048/17

Case C-561/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann v TUIfly GmbH

10

2016/C 048/18

Case C-574/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese (Italy) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone

10

2016/C 048/19

Case C-590/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alain Laurent Brouillard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-420/13, Brouillard v Court of Justice

11

2016/C 048/20

Case C-600/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 November 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; Other party: Lemnis Lighting BV

13

2016/C 048/21

Case C-610/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Stichting Brein, Other parties: Ziggo BV and XS4ALL Internet BV

13

2016/C 048/22

Case C-612/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Kolev and Others

14

2016/C 048/23

Case C-613/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas (Spain) lodged on 20 November 2015 — Ibercaja Banco S.A.U. v José Cortés González

17

2016/C 048/24

Case C-620/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)

18

2016/C 048/25

Case C-621/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 –W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Caisse Carpimko

18

2016/C 048/26

Case C-624/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Litdana UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

19

2016/C 048/27

Case C-637/15 P: Appeal brought on 01 December 2015 by VSM Geneesmiddelen BV against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-578/14: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission

20

2016/C 048/28

Case C-646/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 3 December 2015 — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

22

2016/C 048/29

Case C-649/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2015 by TV2/Danmark A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission

23

2016/C 048/30

Case C-650/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2015 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 25/09/2015 in Case T-268/10 RENV: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

25

2016/C 048/31

Case C-654/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek

26

2016/C 048/32

Case C-656/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission

27

General Court

2016/C 048/33

Case T-9/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air Canada v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

29

2016/C 048/34

Case T-28/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

30

2016/C 048/35

Case T-36/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Japan Airlines v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

31

2016/C 048/36

Case T-38/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

32

2016/C 048/37

Case T-39/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

33

2016/C 048/38

Case T-40/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

34

2016/C 048/39

Case T-43/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

35

2016/C 048/40

Case T-46/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

36

2016/C 048/41

Case T-48/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — British Airways v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

37

2016/C 048/42

Case T-56/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

38

2016/C 048/43

Case T-62/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France-KLM v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

39

2016/C 048/44

Case T-63/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

40

2016/C 048/45

Case T-67/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Martinair Holland v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

41

2016/C 048/46

Case T-73/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

41

2016/C 048/47

Case T-75/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Polska v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

42

2016/C 048/48

Case T-108/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Russia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Product concerned)

43

2016/C 048/49

Case T-241/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from the financing — Beef and beef products — Sheepmeat and goatmeat — Tobacco — Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004)

44

2016/C 048/50

Joined Cases T-381/13 and T-382/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM (DAISY and MARGARITAS) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word marks DAISY and MARGARITAS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Partial refusal to register — No distinctive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

45

2016/C 048/51

Case T-491/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Intercontinental Great Brands (TRIDENT PURE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TRIDENT PURE — Earlier Community, national, international and Benelux figurative and word marks PURE WHITE, mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH, PURE, PURE FRESH, mentos PURE FRESH and mentos PURE WHITE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

46

2016/C 048/52

Case T-138/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Chart v EEAS (Non-contractual liability — Local member of staff assigned to the EU delegation in Egypt — Expiry of contract — Failure by the EU delegation to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the official to the social security services of the Egyptian administration and to subsequently regularise the latter’s situation in that regard — Limitation — Continuing damage — Partial inadmissibility — Principle of good administration — Reasonable period of time — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Sufficiently serious infringement of a legal rule conferring rights on individuals — Quantifiable damage — Causal link)

46

2016/C 048/53

Case T-356/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríguez (Kerashot) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Kerashot — Earlier national figurative mark K KERASOL — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal)

47

2016/C 048/54

Case T-521/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Sweden v Commission (Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Action for failure to act — Specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties — Failure by the Commission to adopt delegated acts — Duty to act)

48

2016/C 048/55

Case T-63/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

49

2016/C 048/56

Case T-64/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on pants) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on pants — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

49

2016/C 048/57

Case T-128/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark RED RIDING HOOD — Earlier national and international word marks ROTKÄPPCHEN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

50

2016/C 048/58

Case T-584/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 December 2015 — POA v Commission (Application for interim measures — Publication of an application for registration of a protected designation of origin — Halloumi or Hellim — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

51

2016/C 048/59

Case T-671/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — E-Control v ACER (Application for interim measures — Opinion on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Infringement of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

51

2016/C 048/60

Case T-603/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission

52

2016/C 048/61

Case T-639/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Psara v Parliament

53

2016/C 048/62

Case T-640/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Kristan v Parliament

54

2016/C 048/63

Case T-641/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Malle v Parliament

55

2016/C 048/64

Case T-642/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Cieśla v Parliament

56

2016/C 048/65

Case T-643/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Dahllof v Parliament

57

2016/C 048/66

Case T-644/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Reuter v Parliament

58

2016/C 048/67

Case T-645/15: Action brought on 13/11/2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament

59

2016/C 048/68

Case T-646/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Karanikas v Parliament

60

2016/C 048/69

Case T-647/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament

61

2016/C 048/70

Case T-648/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

62

2016/C 048/71

Case T-649/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Toth v Parliament

63

2016/C 048/72

Case T-650/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Knus-Galán v Parliament

64

2016/C 048/73

Case T-651/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tchobanov v Parliament

65

2016/C 048/74

Case T-653/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Mulvad v Parliament

66

2016/C 048/75

Case T-654/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament

67

2016/C 048/76

Case T-655/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — van der Parre v Parliament

68

2016/C 048/77

Case T-656/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baggi v Parliament

69

2016/C 048/78

Case T-657/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament

70

2016/C 048/79

Case T-658/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — García Rey v Parliament

71

2016/C 048/80

Case T-659/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Hunter v Parliament

72

2016/C 048/81

Case T-660/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Clerix v Parliament

73

2016/C 048/82

Case T-661/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Araujo v Parliament

74

2016/C 048/83

Case T-662/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Delić v Parliament

75

2016/C 048/84

Case T-663/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

76

2016/C 048/85

Case T-664/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Borg v Parliament

77

2016/C 048/86

Case T-665/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

78

2016/C 048/87

Case T-666/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Bačelić v Parliament

79

2016/C 048/88

Case T-669/15: Action brought on 09 October 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA

80

2016/C 048/89

Case T-683/15: Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission

81

2016/C 048/90

Case T-686/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

82

2016/C 048/91

Case T-687/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava/OHMI — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

83

2016/C 048/92

Case T-689/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

84

2016/C 048/93

Case T-690/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé)

85

2016/C 048/94

Case T-691/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

86

2016/C 048/95

Case T-703/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT)

86

2016/C 048/96

Case T-101/13: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission

87

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2016/C 048/97

Case F-45/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2009 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate)

88

2016/C 048/98

Case F-37/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Report of the Investigation Panel — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint — Annulment — Action for compensation)

88

2016/C 048/99

Case F-82/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — New 2007 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate)

89

2016/C 048/00

Case F-55/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2011 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — No need to adjudicate)

90

2016/C 048/01

Case F-104/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Report of the Investigation Panel — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint — Annulment — Action for compensation)

90

2016/C 048/02

Case F-9/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2012 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate)

91

2016/C 048/03

Case F-94/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Bowles v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Members of the Staff Committee — Remuneration — Salary — Additional increase in salary — Eligibility)

92

2016/C 048/04

Case F-95/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Seigneur v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Members of the Staff Committee — Remuneration — Salary — Additional increase in salary — Eligibility)

92

2016/C 048/05

Joined cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Clarke, Dickmanns and Papathanasiou v OHIM (Civil service — Temporary staff — OHIM staff — Fixed-term contract including a termination clause — Clause terminating a contract if the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition — Date of effect of the termination clause — OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 open competitions)

93

2016/C 048/06

Case F-134/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 17 December 2015 — T v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Causation — Claim for damages for the non-material harm suffered as a result of the delay taken by the institution to acknowledge the occupational origin of the sickness — Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time — Non-material damage)

94

2016/C 048/07

Case F-135/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — DE v EMA (Civil service — EMA staff — Placement on non-active status — Act adversely affecting an official or staff member — Right to be heard — Infringement)

95

2016/C 048/08

Case F-141/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Guittet v Commission (Civil service — Former official — Social security — Payment of medical expenses — Management of the medical file by the Commission — Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Non-contractual liability of the European Union)

95

2016/C 048/09

Case F-17/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Jäger-Waldau v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal — Appraisal report — Request for amendment — Refusal)

96

2016/C 048/10

Case F-34/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — De Loecker v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Temporary staff — Psychological harassment — Articles 12a and 24b of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Rejection — Request to open an administrative investigation — Right to be heard — Infringement)

96

2016/C 048/11

Case F-88/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Bonazzi v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion exercise 2014 — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directorates-General and the services — Omission of the applicant’s name — Whether the list of officials proposed for promotion may be challenged before the Joint Promotion Committee — Failure to define a position by the Joint Promotion Committee — Consideration of comparative merits made by the appointing authority alone)

97

2016/C 048/12

Case F-128/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2010 staff report — Contested — Internal procedures — Conditions — Withdrawal — Action — Lack of locus standi — Reasonable time — Failure to comply — Manifestly inadmissible)

98

2016/C 048/13

Case F-76/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — López Cabeza v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/248/13 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Insufficient mark in the assessment centre tests — Action for annulment — Breach of the competition notice — Illegality of a test)

98

2016/C 048/14

Case F-118/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts — Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities — Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities — Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure — No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

99

2016/C 048/15

Case F-136/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 December 2015 — Probst v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Former parliamentary assistant — Commission’s decision to grant the expatriation allowance to former parliamentary assistants as of the date of publication of the information given to staff — Judgments annulling a measure — Substantial new facts — Limited temporal effect — Res judicata — Administrative decisions which have become final — Equal treatment)

100

2016/C 048/16

Case F-24/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Di Marzio v Council (Civil service — Contractual agent — Function group I — Reclassification of a contract into a contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite term at Grade AST 3, AST 4 or AST 5 or into a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite term in function group III — Articles 2, 3a, 3b, 80 and 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

100

2016/C 048/17

Case F-45/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 December 2015 — Van der Veen v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Member of the temporary staff — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Europol’s refusal to sign a contract for an indefinite period — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly inadmissible)

101

2016/C 048/18

Case F-144/15: Action brought on 23 November 2015 — ZZ v EASA

102

2016/C 048/19

Case F-30/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — Diamantopoulos v EEAS

102

2016/C 048/20

Case F-58/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — FW v Commission

102

2016/C 048/21

Case F-129/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — Morin v Commission

102

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 048/01)

Last publication

OJ C 38, 1.2.2016

Past publications

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016

OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

OJ C 7, 11.1.2016

OJ C 429, 21.12.2015

OJ C 414, 14.12.2015

OJ C 406, 7.12.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs

(Case C-595/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(6) - Special investment funds - Meaning - Investments in immovable property - Management of special investment funds - Meaning - Actual management of a property))

(2016/C 048/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that investment companies such as the companies at issue in the main proceedings, in which capital is pooled by several investors who bear the risk connected with the management of the assets assembled in those companies with a view to purchasing, owning, managing and selling immovable property in order to derive a profit therefrom which will be distributed to all unit-holders in the form of a dividend, those unit-holders benefiting also from an increase in the value of their holding, may be regarded as ‘special investment funds’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the Member State concerned has made those companies subject to specific State supervision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that investment companies such as the companies at issue in the main proceedings, in which capital is pooled by several investors who bear the risk connected with the management of the assets assembled in those companies with a view to purchasing, owning, managing and selling immovable property in order to derive a profit therefrom which will be distributed to all unit-holders in the form of a dividend, those unit-holders benefiting also from an increase in the value of their holding, may be regarded as ‘special investment funds’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the Member State concerned has made those companies subject to specific State supervision.

| 2. | Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management’ which appears in that provision does not cover the actual management of the immovable property of a special investment fund. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management’ which appears in that provision does not cover the actual management of the immovable property of a special investment fund.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trieste — Italy) — Florin Lazar v Allianz SpA

(Case C-350/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation No 864/2007 - Article 4(1) - Concepts of ‘country in which the damage occurs’, ‘damage’ and ‘indirect consequences of the tort or delict’ - Damage sustained personally by a family member of a person who died as a result of a road traffic accident - Applicable law))

(2016/C 048/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Trieste

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Florin Lazar

Defendant: Allianz SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), must be interpreted, in order to determine the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from a road traffic accident, as meaning that the damage related to the death of a person in such an accident which took place in the Member State of the court seised and sustained by the close relatives of that person who reside in another Member State, must be classified as ‘indirect consequences’ of that accident, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas, Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Veloserviss’ SIA

(Case C-427/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance examination of declarations - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination - Powers - Decision on the first post-clearance examination - Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision))

(2016/C 048/04)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:‘Veloserviss’ SIA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which a restriction is placed on the customs authorities’ powers to conduct re-examinations or post-clearance examinations and to regularise the situation by fixing a new customs debt, provided that that restriction refers to a three-year period from the time the initial customs debt was incurred, which it is for the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Canon Europa NV v European Commission

(Case C-552/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 - Actions for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties - Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques))

(2016/C 048/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Canon Europa NV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, and P. Muñiz, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Canon Europa NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Canon Europa NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission

(Case C-553/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 - Actions for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties - Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques))

(2016/C 048/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, and P. Muñiz, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Kyocera Mita Europe BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kyocera Mita Europe BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd

(Case C-594/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 4(1) - Determination of the applicable law - Legislation of a Member State laying down the obligation for a managing director of a company to reimburse that company for the payments made after it had become insolvent - Application of that legislation to a company established in another Member State - Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU - Restriction on the freedom of establishment - None))

(2016/C 048/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Simona Kornhaas

Defendant: Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that Article 4 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that an action directed against the managing director of a company established under the law of England and Wales, forming the subject of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany, brought before a German court by the liquidator of that company and seeking, on the basis of a national provision such as the first sentence of Paragraph 64(2) of the Law on limited liability companies, reimbursement of payments made by that managing director before the opening of the insolvency proceedings but after the date on which the insolvency of that company was established, falls within its scope. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that Article 4 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that an action directed against the managing director of a company established under the law of England and Wales, forming the subject of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany, brought before a German court by the liquidator of that company and seeking, on the basis of a national provision such as the first sentence of Paragraph 64(2) of the Law on limited liability companies, reimbursement of payments made by that managing director before the opening of the insolvency proceedings but after the date on which the insolvency of that company was established, falls within its scope.

| 2. | Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU do not preclude the application of a national provision, such as the first sentence of Paragraph 64(2) of the Law on limited liability companies to a managing director of a company established under the law of England and Wales which is the subject of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU do not preclude the application of a national provision, such as the first sentence of Paragraph 64(2) of the Law on limited liability companies to a managing director of a company established under the law of England and Wales which is the subject of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-603/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for the word mark The English Cut - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word and figurative marks including the word elements ‘El Corte Inglés’ - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(5) - Risk that the relevant public will make a connection with a trade mark which has a reputation - Degree of similarity required))

(2016/C 048/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés, SA (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 October 2014 in El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut) (T-515/12, EU:T:2014:882) in so far as it was held in that judgment that it was apparent from the fact that the degree of similarity between the signs at issue was not sufficient to result in the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark that the conditions for the application of Article 8(5) of that regulation were therefore also not satisfied in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 October 2014 in El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut) (T-515/12, EU:T:2014:882) in so far as it was held in that judgment that it was apparent from the fact that the degree of similarity between the signs at issue was not sufficient to result in the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark that the conditions for the application of Article 8(5) of that regulation were therefore also not satisfied in the present case;

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-183/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Sub-heading 9027 10 10 - Ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers - Handheld particle counters))

(2016/C 048/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TSI GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not fall under subheading 9027 10 10 thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/7

---

Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM

(Case C-190/15 P)

(2016/C 048/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fetim BV (represented by: L. Bakers, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 19 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/7

---

Appeal brought on 14 April 2015 by Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-78/13: Red Bull v OHIM

(Case C-206/15 P)

(2016/C 048/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd (represented by: A. Meskarian, Solicitor, S. Zaiwalla, Solicitor, T. Sampson, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 24 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is inadmissible.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/8

---

Appeal brought on 30 July 2015 by Fernando Brás Messias against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2015 in Case T-192/15 Fernando Brás Messias v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-422/15 P)

(2016/C 048/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Fernando Brás Messias (represented by: F. Brás Messias, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

By order of 15 December 2015, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the action as inadmissible.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/8

---

Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Udo Voigt v President of the European Parliament, European Parliament

(Case C-425/15)

(2016/C 048/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Udo Voigt (represented by: P. R. Richter, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendants: President of the European Parliament, European Parliament

By Order of 29 October 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) held that it clearly does not have jurisdiction to decide on the action for annulment brought by Mr Udo Voigt on 31 July 2015 and referred the case to the General Court of the European Union. It reserved the decision on costs.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj

(Case C-533/15)

(2016/C 048/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Feliks Frisman

Defendant: Finnair Oyj

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ also covers a claim for compensation made under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No [295/91] and brought against an operating air carrier which is not a party to the contract with the passenger concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ also covers a claim for compensation made under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No [295/91] and brought against an operating air carrier which is not a party to the contract with the passenger concerned?

| 2. | Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable:
  When passengers are transported on one of several connecting flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the place of departure of the first leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 even if the flight connection has been carried out by different air carriers and the claim which has been brought is directed against the air carrier which operated a different leg of the journey, on which a significant delay occurred? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable:

When passengers are transported on one of several connecting flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the place of departure of the first leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 even if the flight connection has been carried out by different air carriers and the claim which has been brought is directed against the air carrier which operated a different leg of the journey, on which a significant delay occurred?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Mircea Florian Freitag

(Case C-541/15)

(2016/C 048/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wuppertal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mircea Florian Freitag

Other parties: Angela Freitag, Vica Pavel, Stadt Wuppertal, Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Wuppertal

Question referred

Are Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are obliged to recognise the change of name of a national of that State if that person is at the same time a national of another Member State and has, in that other Member State, by means of a change of name not associated with a change in family-law status, (re-) acquired his original family name received at the time of birth, even though the acquisition of that name did not take place during the habitual residence of that national in that other Member State and was carried out at his own request?

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 23 October 2015 — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Kalus Tederahn

(Case C-551/15)

(2016/C 048/16)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Puli-Pola

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pula Parking d.o.o.

Defendant: Sven Kalus Tederahn

Questions referred

| 1. | Taking into account the legal nature of the relationship between the parties to the proceedings, is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) applicable in the present case? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Taking into account the legal nature of the relationship between the parties to the proceedings, is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) applicable in the present case?

| 2. | Does Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 relate also to the jurisdiction of notaries in the Republic of Croatia? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 relate also to the jurisdiction of notaries in the Republic of Croatia?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-561/15)

(2016/C 048/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 27 November 2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese (Italy) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone

(Case C-574/15)

(2016/C 048/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Varese

Criminal proceedings against

Mauro Scialdone

Questions referred

| 1. | May EU law, and more particularly Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC (1), which lay down for the Member States the duty of equal treatment so far as concerns policies relating to penalties, be interpreted as precluding the enactment of a provision of national law providing that the penal consequences of failure to pay VAT follow once a financial threshold is crossed greater than the threshold provided for in the case of failure to pay income tax? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May EU law, and more particularly Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC (1), which lay down for the Member States the duty of equal treatment so far as concerns policies relating to penalties, be interpreted as precluding the enactment of a provision of national law providing that the penal consequences of failure to pay VAT follow once a financial threshold is crossed greater than the threshold provided for in the case of failure to pay income tax?

| 2. | May EU law, and more particularly Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC, which oblige the Member States to provide effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalties to protect the financial interests of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the enactment of a national provision which exempts the defendant (whether a director, legal representative, person to whom responsibility for fiscal matters has been delegated or an accessory to the offence) from liability to punishment, if the entity with legal personality concerned has made late payment both of the tax itself and of the administrative penalties owed in connection with VAT, even though the tax assessment has already been made, criminal proceedings and indictment initiated, and the establishment of inter partes proceedings duly confirmed, but before trial proceedings have been declared opened, in a system that does not impose on that director, legal representative, or delegate and accessory to the offence any other penalty, not even an administrative penalty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May EU law, and more particularly Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC, which oblige the Member States to provide effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalties to protect the financial interests of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the enactment of a national provision which exempts the defendant (whether a director, legal representative, person to whom responsibility for fiscal matters has been delegated or an accessory to the offence) from liability to punishment, if the entity with legal personality concerned has made late payment both of the tax itself and of the administrative penalties owed in connection with VAT, even though the tax assessment has already been made, criminal proceedings and indictment initiated, and the establishment of inter partes proceedings duly confirmed, but before trial proceedings have been declared opened, in a system that does not impose on that director, legal representative, or delegate and accessory to the offence any other penalty, not even an administrative penalty?

| 3. | Must the concept of fraud governed by Article 1 of the PFI Convention be interpreted as encompassing cases of failure to pay or of partial or late payment of VAT and, consequently, does Article 2 of that Convention require the Member State to punish with a term of imprisonment failure to pay or partial or late payment of VAT in relation to sums in excess of EUR 50 000? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the concept of fraud governed by Article 1 of the PFI Convention be interpreted as encompassing cases of failure to pay or of partial or late payment of VAT and, consequently, does Article 2 of that Convention require the Member State to punish with a term of imprisonment failure to pay or partial or late payment of VAT in relation to sums in excess of EUR 50 000?

If the answer is in the negative, it will be necessary to determine whether the rule under Article 325 TFEU, which requires the Member States to provide penalties, including criminal penalties, which are dissuasive, proportionate and effective, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which exempts from criminal and administrative liability the directors and legal representatives of legal persons, or the persons to whom the functions of those legal persons are delegated and persons who are accessories to the offence, for failure to pay or partial or late payment of VAT in relation to sums equivalent to three or five times the minimum threshold laid down in case of fraud, that is to say, EUR 50 000.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/11

---

Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alain Laurent Brouillard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-420/13, Brouillard v Court of Justice

(Case C-590/15 P)

(2016/C 048/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | declare the appeal well-founded and set aside the judgment of 14 September 2015 (T-420/13); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal well-founded and set aside the judgment of 14 September 2015 (T-420/13);

| — | annul the letters of 5 June 2013 in which the Court of Justice of the European Union invited IDEST Communication SA, first, to submit bids in the context of a negotiated tender procedure relating to the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into French (OJ 2013/S 47-075037) and, second, to confirm that the appellant would not be engaged in the provision of the services required under the contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the letters of 5 June 2013 in which the Court of Justice of the European Union invited IDEST Communication SA, first, to submit bids in the context of a negotiated tender procedure relating to the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into French (OJ 2013/S 47-075037) and, second, to confirm that the appellant would not be engaged in the provision of the services required under the contract.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | In connection with the provision of translation services, the Court of Justice of the European Union submitted that the appellant could not be accepted as a subcontractor of a company invited to tender, on the ground that ‘...the qualification [which he had obtained] from the University of Poitiers (a vocational master’s degree in law, economics and management, private law, lawyer-linguist specialism), even though it [was] a level 2 Master’s Degree, [did] not demonstrate full legal training’ and that ‘that assessment [was] consistent with an established practice of the French translation unit which does not regard the “lawyer-linguist” training offered by the University of Poitiers (Master’s Degree 2) as being legal training which satisfies the requirements set out in paragraph III.2.1 of the contract notice’, it being made clear that ‘[t]he method of obtaining the degree (“VAE”, or validation of acquired experience) [had] had no effect on the assessment ...’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In connection with the provision of translation services, the Court of Justice of the European Union submitted that the appellant could not be accepted as a subcontractor of a company invited to tender, on the ground that ‘...the qualification [which he had obtained] from the University of Poitiers (a vocational master’s degree in law, economics and management, private law, lawyer-linguist specialism), even though it [was] a level 2 Master’s Degree, [did] not demonstrate full legal training’ and that ‘that assessment [was] consistent with an established practice of the French translation unit which does not regard the “lawyer-linguist” training offered by the University of Poitiers (Master’s Degree 2) as being legal training which satisfies the requirements set out in paragraph III.2.1 of the contract notice’, it being made clear that ‘[t]he method of obtaining the degree (“VAE”, or validation of acquired experience) [had] had no effect on the assessment ...’.

| 2. | The appellant claims that there has been an infringement of the general principles of equality, freedom of establishment, free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, the principle of proportionality, Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 51 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 45, 49, 51, 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the right to education and instruction, and an error in law and a misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The appellant claims that there has been an infringement of the general principles of equality, freedom of establishment, free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, the principle of proportionality, Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 51 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 45, 49, 51, 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the right to education and instruction, and an error in law and a misuse of power.

| 3. | The General Court erred in law in concluding that there was no ‘interference’ with the rights and freedoms referred to above. The error in law is all the more apparent given that the appellant has qualifications which are inherently, indeed essentially, intended to enable him to provide legal translation services. In addition, the Court of Justice at the very least ‘interfered’ with the appellant’s right to benefit from the studies undertaken as an academic lawyer and translator. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erred in law in concluding that there was no ‘interference’ with the rights and freedoms referred to above. The error in law is all the more apparent given that the appellant has qualifications which are inherently, indeed essentially, intended to enable him to provide legal translation services. In addition, the Court of Justice at the very least ‘interfered’ with the appellant’s right to benefit from the studies undertaken as an academic lawyer and translator.

| 4. | The General Court also erred in law and misconstrued EU law in holding that the contracting authority was not bound by an obligation to make a comparison, on the ground that Directive 2005/36 (1) was not applicable and that therefore ‘the appellant could not rely on the case-law concerning the recognition of diplomas in order to assert, in essence, that the Court of Justice should have taken into account the appellant’s other qualifications and experience’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The General Court also erred in law and misconstrued EU law in holding that the contracting authority was not bound by an obligation to make a comparison, on the ground that Directive 2005/36 (1) was not applicable and that therefore ‘the appellant could not rely on the case-law concerning the recognition of diplomas in order to assert, in essence, that the Court of Justice should have taken into account the appellant’s other qualifications and experience’.

| 5. | The General Court made another error in law in holding that the contracting authority was entitled to disregard the master’s degree in law (five years of post-Baccalauréat studies) awarded in France ‘in view of the various diplomas available in Belgium and France before and after the 2004 reform harmonising higher education diplomas in Europe’. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The General Court made another error in law in holding that the contracting authority was entitled to disregard the master’s degree in law (five years of post-Baccalauréat studies) awarded in France ‘in view of the various diplomas available in Belgium and France before and after the 2004 reform harmonising higher education diplomas in Europe’.

| 6. | The infringement of the fundamental freedoms and general principles of EU law referred to above, taken individually or in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, also stem from the fact that the decision to exclude the appellant was adopted without taking into consideration all of his diplomas, certificates and other qualifications and his relevant professional experience, and without comparing the academic and professional qualifications demonstrated by the appellant with those required by the tendering specifications. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The infringement of the fundamental freedoms and general principles of EU law referred to above, taken individually or in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, also stem from the fact that the decision to exclude the appellant was adopted without taking into consideration all of his diplomas, certificates and other qualifications and his relevant professional experience, and without comparing the academic and professional qualifications demonstrated by the appellant with those required by the tendering specifications.

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 November 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; Other party: Lemnis Lighting BV

(Case C-600/15)

(2016/C 048/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: Lemnis Lighting BV

Question referred

Are headings 8539, 8541, 8543, 8548 and 9405 of the CN to be interpreted as meaning that products such as LED bulbs, which consist of light-emitting diodes and other electrical components, as well as a glass covering and an Edison screw base, and which serve to provide illumination after being fitted into a lighting fitting, must be classified under one of those headings? If so, under which of those headings are those products to be classified? If not, under which other heading must classification then be made?

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Stichting Brein, Other parties: Ziggo BV and XS4ALL Internet BV

(Case C-610/15)

(2016/C 048/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Brein

Other parties: Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive (1) by the operator of a website, if no protected works are available on that website, but a system exist ... by means of which metadata on protected works which is present on the users’ computers is indexed and categorised for users, so that the users can trace and upload and download the protected works on the basis thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive (1) by the operator of a website, if no protected works are available on that website, but a system exist ... by means of which metadata on protected works which is present on the users’ computers is indexed and categorised for users, so that the users can trace and upload and download the protected works on the basis thereof?

| 2. | If the answer to Question (1) is negative:
  Do Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive and Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive (2) offer any scope for obtaining an injunction against an intermediary as referred to in those provisions, if that intermediary facilitates the infringing acts of third parties in the way referred to in Question 1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question (1) is negative:

Do Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive and Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive (2) offer any scope for obtaining an injunction against an intermediary as referred to in those provisions, if that intermediary facilitates the infringing acts of third parties in the way referred to in Question 1?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

(2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Kolev and Others

(Case C-612/15)

(2016/C 048/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Kolev and Others

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a national law compatible with the obligation of a Member State to provide for the effective prosecution of criminal offences by customs officials if that law provides for criminal proceedings brought against customs officials — for participation in a conspiracy to commit corruption offences while performing their professional duties (accepting bribes for non-performance of customs inspections), and for specific bribery offences and concealment of bribes received — to be terminated, without the court having examined the charges brought, under the following conditions: (a) two years have elapsed since the accused was charged; (b) the accused has lodged a request for the pre-trial investigation to be concluded; (c) the court has given the prosecutor a period of three months to conclude the pre-trial investigation; (d) during that period, the prosecutor has committed ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ (failure properly to notify a supplementary charge, failure to disclose the investigation file, contradictory indictment); (e) the court has given the prosecutor a further period of one month to remedy those ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; ([f]) the prosecutor has failed to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within that time-limit — albeit that the infringements committed within the first three-month period and the failure to remedy them within the subsequent one-month period are attributable both to the prosecutor (failure to remove contradictions in the indictment; failure to take real action for most of those periods) and also to the defence (breach of the duty to cooperate with respect to notification of the charge and inspection of the investigation file due to the hospitalisation of the accused and claims regarding the lawyers’ other professional commitments); ([g]) the accused has acquired a subjective right to the termination of the criminal proceedings on account of the failure to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within the prescribed periods? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a national law compatible with the obligation of a Member State to provide for the effective prosecution of criminal offences by customs officials if that law provides for criminal proceedings brought against customs officials — for participation in a conspiracy to commit corruption offences while performing their professional duties (accepting bribes for non-performance of customs inspections), and for specific bribery offences and concealment of bribes received — to be terminated, without the court having examined the charges brought, under the following conditions: (a) two years have elapsed since the accused was charged; (b) the accused has lodged a request for the pre-trial investigation to be concluded; (c) the court has given the prosecutor a period of three months to conclude the pre-trial investigation; (d) during that period, the prosecutor has committed ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ (failure properly to notify a supplementary charge, failure to disclose the investigation file, contradictory indictment); (e) the court has given the prosecutor a further period of one month to remedy those ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; ([f]) the prosecutor has failed to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within that time-limit — albeit that the infringements committed within the first three-month period and the failure to remedy them within the subsequent one-month period are attributable both to the prosecutor (failure to remove contradictions in the indictment; failure to take real action for most of those periods) and also to the defence (breach of the duty to cooperate with respect to notification of the charge and inspection of the investigation file due to the hospitalisation of the accused and claims regarding the lawyers’ other professional commitments); ([g]) the accused has acquired a subjective right to the termination of the criminal proceedings on account of the failure to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within the prescribed periods?

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the negative, which part of the abovementioned legislation should the national court disapply in order to ensure that EU law is applied effectively: 2.1. termination of the criminal proceedings once the one-month period has expired; or 2.2. categorisation of the abovementioned defects as ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; or 2.3. protection of the subjective right arising under [(g)] if there is a possibility that that infringement may be remedied effectively in the court proceedings?






  2.1. | Should the decision to disapply national rules providing for the termination of criminal proceedings be determined by:






  A) | the prosecutor’s being granted an additional period of time to remedy the ‘infringement of essential procedural requirements’ equal to the period during which he was, objectively, precluded from doing so because of obstacles attributable to the defence? |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the negative, which part of the abovementioned legislation should the national court disapply in order to ensure that EU law is applied effectively: 2.1. termination of the criminal proceedings once the one-month period has expired; or 2.2. categorisation of the abovementioned defects as ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; or 2.3. protection of the subjective right arising under [(g)] if there is a possibility that that infringement may be remedied effectively in the court proceedings?

2.1.

Should the decision to disapply national rules providing for the termination of criminal proceedings be determined by:

A)

the prosecutor’s being granted an additional period of time to remedy the ‘infringement of essential procedural requirements’ equal to the period during which he was, objectively, precluded from doing so because of obstacles attributable to the defence?

| B) | the court’s establishing in the case of A) above that the obstacles are the result of an ‘abuse of law’? |
| --- | --- |

B)

the court’s establishing in the case of A) above that the obstacles are the result of an ‘abuse of law’?

| C) | if the answer to A) is in the negative, the court’s establishing that national law provides sufficient guarantees that the pre-trial investigation will be completed within a reasonable time? |
| --- | --- |

C)

if the answer to A) is in the negative, the court’s establishing that national law provides sufficient guarantees that the pre-trial investigation will be completed within a reasonable time?

| 2.2. | Is the decision not to categorise the abovementioned defects in accordance with national law as ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ compatible with EU law, that is to say:






  A) | Would the right under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) for the defence to be provided with detailed information on the accusation be adequately safeguarded:






  -1) | if that information was provided after the actual submission of the merits of the accusation [(also referred to below as ‘the indictment’)] to a court but before examination of the indictment by the court, or if, at an earlier stage, prior to submission of the indictment to the court, the defence was provided with full information about the essential elements of the accusation (as in Mr Hristov’s case)? |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.

Is the decision not to categorise the abovementioned defects in accordance with national law as ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ compatible with EU law, that is to say:

A)

Would the right under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) for the defence to be provided with detailed information on the accusation be adequately safeguarded:

-1)

if that information was provided after the actual submission of the merits of the accusation [(also referred to below as ‘the indictment’)] to a court but before examination of the indictment by the court, or if, at an earlier stage, prior to submission of the indictment to the court, the defence was provided with full information about the essential elements of the accusation (as in Mr Hristov’s case)?

| -2) | in the event that the answer to 2.2.А)-1) is in the affirmative, if that information was provided after the actual submission of the indictment to a court but before the court had examined it, and the defence had, at an earlier stage, been provided with partial information about the essential elements of the accusation prior to submission of the indictment to the court, the provision of only partial information being attributable to obstacles on the part of the defence (as in the case of Mr Kolev and Mr Kostadinov)? |
| --- | --- |

-2)

in the event that the answer to 2.2.А)-1) is in the affirmative, if that information was provided after the actual submission of the indictment to a court but before the court had examined it, and the defence had, at an earlier stage, been provided with partial information about the essential elements of the accusation prior to submission of the indictment to the court, the provision of only partial information being attributable to obstacles on the part of the defence (as in the case of Mr Kolev and Mr Kostadinov)?

| -3) | if the information was contradictory as regards the way in which the demand for a bribe was actually expressed (at one point it is stated that another defendant expressly demanded the bribe, while Mr Hristov indicated his dissatisfaction, by grimacing, when the person undergoing the customs inspection offered too little money, whereas elsewhere it is asserted that Mr Hristov explicitly and specifically demanded a bribe)? |
| --- | --- |

-3)

if the information was contradictory as regards the way in which the demand for a bribe was actually expressed (at one point it is stated that another defendant expressly demanded the bribe, while Mr Hristov indicated his dissatisfaction, by grimacing, when the person undergoing the customs inspection offered too little money, whereas elsewhere it is asserted that Mr Hristov explicitly and specifically demanded a bribe)?

| B) | Would the right under Article 7(3) of Directive 2012/13 for the defence to be granted access to case materials ‘at the latest upon submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court’ be adequately safeguarded in the main proceedings if the defence had access to the essential part of the materials at an earlier stage and was given the opportunity to inspect the materials but, because of various obstacles (illness, professional commitments), and in reliance on national law which requires at least three days’ notice to be given of the availability of materials for inspection, did not avail itself of that opportunity? Must a further opportunity for inspection be given once those obstacles are removed and subject to at least three days’ notice being given? Is it necessary to establish whether the obstacles referred to did, objectively, exist or constitute an abuse of law? |
| --- | --- |

B)

Would the right under Article 7(3) of Directive 2012/13 for the defence to be granted access to case materials ‘at the latest upon submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court’ be adequately safeguarded in the main proceedings if the defence had access to the essential part of the materials at an earlier stage and was given the opportunity to inspect the materials but, because of various obstacles (illness, professional commitments), and in reliance on national law which requires at least three days’ notice to be given of the availability of materials for inspection, did not avail itself of that opportunity? Must a further opportunity for inspection be given once those obstacles are removed and subject to at least three days’ notice being given? Is it necessary to establish whether the obstacles referred to did, objectively, exist or constitute an abuse of law?

| C) | Does the legal requirement laid down in Article 6(3) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2012/13 (‘at the latest on submission of the merits of the accusation to a court’/‘at the latest upon submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court’) have the same meaning in both provisions? What does that requirement mean: prior to the actual submission of the merits of the accusation to [the judgment of] a court, or at the latest on their submission to the court, or after their submission to a court but before the court has taken steps to examine the merits of the accusation? |
| --- | --- |

C)

Does the legal requirement laid down in Article 6(3) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2012/13 (‘at the latest on submission of the merits of the accusation to a court’/‘at the latest upon submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court’) have the same meaning in both provisions? What does that requirement mean: prior to the actual submission of the merits of the accusation to [the judgment of] a court, or at the latest on their submission to the court, or after their submission to a court but before the court has taken steps to examine the merits of the accusation?

| D) | Does the legal requirement to provide information on the accusation to the defence and access to the materials of the case in such a way as to ensure that ‘the effective exercise of the rights of the defence’ and ‘the fairness of the proceedings’ can be safeguarded in accordance with Article 6(1) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2012/13 have the same meaning in both provisions? Would that requirement be met:






  -1) | if the detailed information on the accusation was provided to the defence after submission of the indictment to a court but before any steps had been taken to examine its merits and the defence had been given sufficient time for preparation, incomplete and partial information on the accusation having been provided at an earlier stage? |
| --- | --- | --- |

D)

Does the legal requirement to provide information on the accusation to the defence and access to the materials of the case in such a way as to ensure that ‘the effective exercise of the rights of the defence’ and ‘the fairness of the proceedings’ can be safeguarded in accordance with Article 6(1) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2012/13 have the same meaning in both provisions? Would that requirement be met:

-1)

if the detailed information on the accusation was provided to the defence after submission of the indictment to a court but before any steps had been taken to examine its merits and the defence had been given sufficient time for preparation, incomplete and partial information on the accusation having been provided at an earlier stage?

| -2) | if the defence was granted access to all the case materials after submission of the indictment to a court but before any steps had been taken to examine its merits, and the defence had been given sufficient time for preparation, access to the majority of the case materials having been given to the defence at an earlier stage? |
| --- | --- |

-2)

if the defence was granted access to all the case materials after submission of the indictment to a court but before any steps had been taken to examine its merits, and the defence had been given sufficient time for preparation, access to the majority of the case materials having been given to the defence at an earlier stage?

| -3) | if the court adopted measures to guarantee to the defence that all statements given by the defence after studying the detailed indictment and all the case materials would have the same effect as they would have had if those statements had been given to the prosecutor before submission of the indictment to the court? |
| --- | --- |

-3)

if the court adopted measures to guarantee to the defence that all statements given by the defence after studying the detailed indictment and all the case materials would have the same effect as they would have had if those statements had been given to the prosecutor before submission of the indictment to the court?

| E) | Would ‘the fairness of the proceedings’ in accordance with Article 6(1) and (4) and ‘the effective exercise of the rights of the defence’ in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13 be safeguarded if the court decided that judicial proceedings should be commenced in respect of a definitive charge that is contradictory as regards the way in which the demand for a bribe was expressed, but then gave the prosecutor an opportunity to remove those contradictions and enabled the parties to exercise fully those rights which they would have had if the charge had been filed without any such contradictions? |
| --- | --- |

E)

Would ‘the fairness of the proceedings’ in accordance with Article 6(1) and (4) and ‘the effective exercise of the rights of the defence’ in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13 be safeguarded if the court decided that judicial proceedings should be commenced in respect of a definitive charge that is contradictory as regards the way in which the demand for a bribe was expressed, but then gave the prosecutor an opportunity to remove those contradictions and enabled the parties to exercise fully those rights which they would have had if the charge had been filed without any such contradictions?

| F) | Would the right of access to a lawyer enshrined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU (2) be adequately safeguarded if, during the pre-trial investigation, the lawyer was given the opportunity to appear in order to be notified of the provisional charge and to be given full access to all case materials, but failed to appear due to professional commitments and in reliance on national law requiring at least three days’ notice to be given? Is it necessary for a new time limit of at least three days to be imposed once those commitments have been met? Is it necessary to establish whether the reason for the [non-]appearance is valid or whether there has been an abuse of law? |
| --- | --- |

F)

Would the right of access to a lawyer enshrined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU (2) be adequately safeguarded if, during the pre-trial investigation, the lawyer was given the opportunity to appear in order to be notified of the provisional charge and to be given full access to all case materials, but failed to appear due to professional commitments and in reliance on national law requiring at least three days’ notice to be given? Is it necessary for a new time limit of at least three days to be imposed once those commitments have been met? Is it necessary to establish whether the reason for the [non-]appearance is valid or whether there has been an abuse of law?

| G) | Would the infringement during the pre-trial investigation of the right of access to a lawyer enshrined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48 have an effect on the ‘[practical and effective] exercise [of] rights of defence’ if, after submission of the indictment to the court, the court granted the lawyer full access to the final and detailed indictment and to all the case materials, and then adopted measures to guarantee to the lawyer that all statements made by him after studying the detailed indictment and all the case materials would have the same effect as they would have had if those statements had been made to the prosecutor before submission of the indictment to the court? |
| --- | --- |

G)

Would the infringement during the pre-trial investigation of the right of access to a lawyer enshrined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48 have an effect on the ‘[practical and effective] exercise [of] rights of defence’ if, after submission of the indictment to the court, the court granted the lawyer full access to the final and detailed indictment and to all the case materials, and then adopted measures to guarantee to the lawyer that all statements made by him after studying the detailed indictment and all the case materials would have the same effect as they would have had if those statements had been made to the prosecutor before submission of the indictment to the court?

| 2.3. | Is the subjective right of the accused to have the criminal proceedings terminated (under the above conditions) compatible with EU law, notwithstanding the fact that the ‘infringement of essential procedural requirements’ which the prosecutor has failed to remedy may be fully remedied as a result of measures taken by the court in the judicial proceedings, so that ultimately the legal position of the accused is identical to that which he would have had if the infringement had been remedied in due time? |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

Is the subjective right of the accused to have the criminal proceedings terminated (under the above conditions) compatible with EU law, notwithstanding the fact that the ‘infringement of essential procedural requirements’ which the prosecutor has failed to remedy may be fully remedied as a result of measures taken by the court in the judicial proceedings, so that ultimately the legal position of the accused is identical to that which he would have had if the infringement had been remedied in due time?

| 3. | Can more favourable national rules on the right to a trial within a reasonable time, the right to information and the right of access to a lawyer be applied if they — in conjunction with other circumstances (the procedure described at point 1) — would result in the termination of the criminal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can more favourable national rules on the right to a trial within a reasonable time, the right to information and the right of access to a lawyer be applied if they — in conjunction with other circumstances (the procedure described at point 1) — would result in the termination of the criminal proceedings?

| 4. | Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48 to be interpreted as authorising the national court to exclude from the court proceedings a lawyer who has represented two of the accused, one of whom has given a statement regarding matters that are prejudicial to the interests of the other, who has not given a statement? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48 to be interpreted as authorising the national court to exclude from the court proceedings a lawyer who has represented two of the accused, one of whom has given a statement regarding matters that are prejudicial to the interests of the other, who has not given a statement?

If this question is to be answered in the affirmative, would the court be safeguarding the right of access to a lawyer in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48 if, having allowed a lawyer who has simultaneously represented two defendants with conflicting interests to take part in the proceedings, it appointed new, different defence lawyers to represent each of those defendants?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas (Spain) lodged on 20 November 2015 — Ibercaja Banco S.A.U. v José Cortés González

(Case C-613/15)

(2016/C 048/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibercaja Banco S.A.U.

Defendant: José Cortés González

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 114 of the Law on Mortgages, under which the national court, when assessing the unfairness of a term fixing default interest, may examine only whether the agreed interest rate exceeds three times the statutory interest rate and may take account of no other circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 114 of the Law on Mortgages, under which the national court, when assessing the unfairness of a term fixing default interest, may examine only whether the agreed interest rate exceeds three times the statutory interest rate and may take account of no other circumstances?

| 2. | Do Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 693 LEC, which allows a claim to be made for accelerated repayment of the total amount of the loan on the grounds of failure to pay three monthly instalments, without account being taken of other factors such as the duration or amount of the loan or any other relevant matters, and which also makes the possibility of avoiding the effects of such accelerated repayment dependent on the will of the creditor except in cases in which the mortgage is secured on the mortgagor’s permanent residence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 693 LEC, which allows a claim to be made for accelerated repayment of the total amount of the loan on the grounds of failure to pay three monthly instalments, without account being taken of other factors such as the duration or amount of the loan or any other relevant matters, and which also makes the possibility of avoiding the effects of such accelerated repayment dependent on the will of the creditor except in cases in which the mortgage is secured on the mortgagor’s permanent residence?

| 3. | Is the Fourth Transitional Provision of Law 1/1203 contrary to the line of decided cases following Cofidis? (2) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Fourth Transitional Provision of Law 1/1203 contrary to the line of decided cases following Cofidis? (2)

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  Case C-473/00 EU:C:2002:705.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)

(Case C-620/15)

(2016/C 048/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH

Respondents: Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)

Question referred

Is the effect of an E 101 certificate issued, in accordance with Articles 11(1) and Article 12a(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to the members of their families moving within the Community, (1) by the institution designated by the competent authority of the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the situation of the employee, binding, first, on the institutions and authorities of the host Member State and, secondly, on the courts of that Member State, where it is found that the conditions under which the employee carries out his activity clearly do not fall within the material scope of the exceptions set out in Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71? (2)

---

(1)  OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 –W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Caisse Carpimko

(Case C-621/15)

(2016/C 048/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: W and Others

Defendant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Caisse Carpimko

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products be interpreted as precluding, in the area of liability of pharmaceutical laboratories for the vaccines that they manufacture, a method of proof by which the court ruling on the merits, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to appraise the facts, may consider that the facts relied on by the applicant constitute serious, specific and consistent presumptions capable of proving the defect in the vaccine and the existence of a causal relationship between it and the disease, notwithstanding the finding that medical research does not establish a relationship between the vaccine and the occurrence of the disease? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products be interpreted as precluding, in the area of liability of pharmaceutical laboratories for the vaccines that they manufacture, a method of proof by which the court ruling on the merits, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to appraise the facts, may consider that the facts relied on by the applicant constitute serious, specific and consistent presumptions capable of proving the defect in the vaccine and the existence of a causal relationship between it and the disease, notwithstanding the finding that medical research does not establish a relationship between the vaccine and the occurrence of the disease?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does Article 4 of Directive 85/374, cited above, preclude a system of presumptions by which the existence of a causal relationship between the defect attributed to a vaccine and the damage suffered by the injured person will always be considered to be established where certain indications of causation are found? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does Article 4 of Directive 85/374, cited above, preclude a system of presumptions by which the existence of a causal relationship between the defect attributed to a vaccine and the damage suffered by the injured person will always be considered to be established where certain indications of causation are found?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 4 of Directive 85/374, cited above, be interpreted as meaning that proof, the burden of which rests on the person injured, of the existence of a causal relationship between the defect attributed to a vaccine and the damage suffered by that person cannot be considered to have been adduced unless the causal relationship is established scientifically? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 4 of Directive 85/374, cited above, be interpreted as meaning that proof, the burden of which rests on the person injured, of the existence of a causal relationship between the defect attributed to a vaccine and the damage suffered by that person cannot be considered to have been adduced unless the causal relationship is established scientifically?

---

(1)  OJ L 210, p. 29.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Litdana UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-624/15)

(2016/C 048/26)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Litdana UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Articles 314(a) and 226(11) of Directive 2006/112 (1) and under Articles 314(d) and 226(14) of that directive, are national rules and/or national practice founded on those rules allowed that prevent a taxable person from applying the VAT margin scheme because it becomes apparent upon a tax inspection carried out by the tax authority that incorrect information/data on the application of the VAT margin scheme and/or on exemption from VAT was provided in the VAT invoices for the goods supplied, but the taxable person did not know and could not have known about that? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Articles 314(a) and 226(11) of Directive 2006/112 (1) and under Articles 314(d) and 226(14) of that directive, are national rules and/or national practice founded on those rules allowed that prevent a taxable person from applying the VAT margin scheme because it becomes apparent upon a tax inspection carried out by the tax authority that incorrect information/data on the application of the VAT margin scheme and/or on exemption from VAT was provided in the VAT invoices for the goods supplied, but the taxable person did not know and could not have known about that?

| 2. | Is Article 314 of Directive 2006/112 to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, although the VAT invoice states that the goods are exempt from VAT (Article 226(11) of Directive 2006/112) and/or the seller has applied the margin scheme in order to supply the goods (Article 226(14) of Directive 2006/112), the taxable person acquires the right to apply the VAT margin scheme only when the supplier of the goods actually applies the margin scheme and duly discharges his obligations in the sphere of payment of VAT (pays VAT on the margin in his State)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 314 of Directive 2006/112 to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, although the VAT invoice states that the goods are exempt from VAT (Article 226(11) of Directive 2006/112) and/or the seller has applied the margin scheme in order to supply the goods (Article 226(14) of Directive 2006/112), the taxable person acquires the right to apply the VAT margin scheme only when the supplier of the goods actually applies the margin scheme and duly discharges his obligations in the sphere of payment of VAT (pays VAT on the margin in his State)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/20

---

Appeal brought on 01 December 2015 by VSM Geneesmiddelen BV against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-578/14: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission

(Case C-637/15 P)

(2016/C 048/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV (represented by: U. Grundmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in the case T-578/14, dated 16 September 2015, served by telefax on 21 September 2015. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in the case T-578/14, dated 16 September 2015, served by telefax on 21 September 2015.

| — | set aside the decision of the President of the Chamber not to place the letters lodged on 22/07/2015 and 24/07/2015 on the case file in case T-578/14, served on 21 September 2015. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the President of the Chamber not to place the letters lodged on 22/07/2015 and 24/07/2015 on the case file in case T-578/14, served on 21 September 2015.

| — | declare that the Commission has unlawfully failed to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by the European Food Safety Authority pursuant to Article 13 Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 since 01/08/2014, and, in the alternative, annul the decision, allegedly contained in the Commission's Letter of 29/06/2014, not to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by EFSA, pursuant to Article 13 before 01/08/2014. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission has unlawfully failed to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by the European Food Safety Authority pursuant to Article 13 Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 since 01/08/2014, and, in the alternative, annul the decision, allegedly contained in the Commission's Letter of 29/06/2014, not to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by EFSA, pursuant to Article 13 before 01/08/2014.

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 13 chapter 3 of the Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 — the Health Claims Regulation — (‘HCR’) the European Commission was under an obligation to adopt a list of permitted claims for substances used in food at the latest by 31/01/2010. In preparation for the adoption of such a list the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was commissioned to evaluate claims that had been submitted by the Member States. However, in September 2010 the Commission announced the suspension and review of the assessment procedure as regards claims for botanical substances, whereupon EFSA ceased to process those claims. The Commission suspended only the assessment procedure on botanical substances, but not the procedure on other, similar chemical substances.

VSM Geneesmiddelen B.V. called upon the European Commission, with a letter dated 23/04/2014, to instruct EFSA to resume, without delay, the assessment of health claims for botanical substances used in food.

VSM Geneesmiddelen B.V. is strongly affected by the present legal backlog and the uncertainty in the field of health claims on botanical substances used in food. A number of the health claims that have been submitted to the European Commission refer to botanical substances used in the product range of VSM Geneesmiddelen B.V. Among these are claims for stinging nettle/urtica (claims 2346, 2498 and 2787), St. John's wort/hypericum perforatum (claims 2272 and 2273), melissa (claims 3712, 3713, 2087, 2303 and 2848) and witch hazel/lhamamelis virginiana (claim 3383). None of these claims has so far been assessed by the EFSA and has accordingly not been included in the Commission's list according to Article 13 III HCR.

The responsible Commissioner informed the Appellant in a letter dated 19/06/2014 that the Commission has received expressions of concern from various Member States and stakeholders with regard to the differentiated treatment of products containing such substances under the legislation on health claims for food on the one hand, and on the traditional herbal medicinal products on the other. The Commissioner informed the Appellant, that the Commission will not initiate the assessment of health claims on botanicals at this stage. The Commission needs some time to identify the best course of action needed.

The answer of the Commissioner is not acceptable to the Appellant. For this reason, the legal representative of the Appellant in this procedure, sent a further letter to the Commissioner, dated 08/07/2014, setting a deadline for the initiation of the assessment of health claims on botanicals by EFSA ending 31/07/2014. No reply has been received to that letter.

The Appellant brought a complaint before the General Court asking the Court to declare that the Commission has unlawfully failed to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by EFSA, and, in the alternative, for annulment of the decision not to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by EFSA. The General Court dismissed the complaint as inadmissible in case T-578/14 by an order dated 16 September 2015. With this appeal the Appellant claims that the Court should set aside the aforementioned order of the General Court and take the decision sought in the complaint before the General Court.

The contested judgment contains breaches of procedure which adversely affect the interests of the Appellant, and, in addition, the General Court infringed Union law in aforementioned court order. The General Court found the complaint to be inadmissible because (i) the Appellant missed time limits set by law; (ii) the Appellant did not properly demonstrate that it has an interest, in bringing the proceedings; (iii) the transitional measures in Art. 28 of Regulation No. 1924/2006 are sufficient to protect food business operators and there would not be a definite advantage in the adoption of a definitive list of permitted health claims for food business operators, and (iv) the provisions of the health claims regulation leave it to the discretion of the Commission to define the timeframe in which the list of permitted claims should be adopted and that the Commission enjoys a wide discretion in doing so. These findings of the General Court violate the TFEU, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union and other EU law.

The Commission does not enjoy a wide discretion as to when to act and how to act. It is stated in Art. 13 Sec. 3 of Regulation No. 1924/2006 that the Commission has to consult with EFSA prior to taking any decision, and that the Commission has to finalize the list by 31 January 2010 at the latest. Both in consulting with EFSA and adopting the list by 31 January 2010 the latest the Commission has no discretion. The General Court failed in its arguments. Since Member States have to adopt the content of EU Directives within the time limit set by the Directive and, therefore, are bound by EU law, the same applies to the European Commission, which is also bound by time limits given in the Regulation. If missing time limits by the Member States is considered as a clear violation of EU law, the same applies to the Commission’s missing time limits in the Health Claims Regulation.

The General Court failed when arguing that food business operators, such as the Appellant, are protected by transitional measures. Art. 28 Sec. 5 of the Regulation refers directly to Art. 13 Sec. 3 of the Regulation which means that the transitional measures ended on 31 January 2010 the latest. It may be acceptable that this time limit may not be met and that the transitional measures shall apply after 31 January 2010 for a couple of months, but missing the time limits set by law by six years is not fulfilling the goals of the health claim regulation itself.

Since the Appellant brought Claims which are now under observation by EFSA the Appellant is directly affected and, therefore, in a position to bring an action against the Commission. The arguments of the General Court in the case T-296/12 apply to this case.

The Appellant has met all time limits provided in Art. 265 and 263 TFEU. The General Court violated the Appellant's rights of effective protection by a tribunal in accordance with the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 3 December 2015 — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-646/15)

(2016/C 048/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with the freedom of establishment, the free movement of capital, or the freedom to provide services for a Member State to enact and maintain legislation such as section 80 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1997 under which a charge to tax arises on the unrealised gains in value of the assets comprised in a trust fund if the trustees of a trust become at any time neither resident nor ordinarily resident in the Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with the freedom of establishment, the free movement of capital, or the freedom to provide services for a Member State to enact and maintain legislation such as section 80 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1997 under which a charge to tax arises on the unrealised gains in value of the assets comprised in a trust fund if the trustees of a trust become at any time neither resident nor ordinarily resident in the Member State.

| 2. | On the assumption that such a charge to tax restricts the exercise of the relevant freedom, is such a charge justifiable in accordance with the balanced allocation of powers of taxation, and is such a charge proportionate where the legislation neither grants the trustees the option to defer the charge to tax or to pay in instalments, nor does it take into account any subsequent fall in the value of the trust assets. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On the assumption that such a charge to tax restricts the exercise of the relevant freedom, is such a charge justifiable in accordance with the balanced allocation of powers of taxation, and is such a charge proportionate where the legislation neither grants the trustees the option to defer the charge to tax or to pay in instalments, nor does it take into account any subsequent fall in the value of the trust assets.

| 3. | Are any of the fundamental freedoms engaged where a Member State imposes a charge to tax on unrealised capital gains on the increase in value of assets held by trusts at the time when the majority of the trustees cease to be resident or ordinarily resident in that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are any of the fundamental freedoms engaged where a Member State imposes a charge to tax on unrealised capital gains on the increase in value of assets held by trusts at the time when the majority of the trustees cease to be resident or ordinarily resident in that Member State?

| 4. | Is a restriction on the freedom created by that exit charge justified in order to ensure balanced allocation of powers of taxation, in circumstances where it was possible that capital gains tax might still be imposed on the realised gains, but only if specific circumstances arose in the future? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is a restriction on the freedom created by that exit charge justified in order to ensure balanced allocation of powers of taxation, in circumstances where it was possible that capital gains tax might still be imposed on the realised gains, but only if specific circumstances arose in the future?

| 5. | Is proportionality to be determined on the facts of the individual case? In particular, is the restriction created by such a charge to tax proportionate in circumstances where:






  (a) | the legislation makes no provision for an option to defer the payment of tax or for payment in instalments, or for account to be taken of any subsequent fall in the value of the trust assets after the exit, |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Is proportionality to be determined on the facts of the individual case? In particular, is the restriction created by such a charge to tax proportionate in circumstances where:

(a)

the legislation makes no provision for an option to defer the payment of tax or for payment in instalments, or for account to be taken of any subsequent fall in the value of the trust assets after the exit,

| (b) | but in the particular circumstances of the assessment to tax under appeal, the assets were sold before the tax was payable and the relevant assets did not decrease in value between the relocation of the trust and the date of sale. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

but in the particular circumstances of the assessment to tax under appeal, the assets were sold before the tax was payable and the relevant assets did not decrease in value between the relocation of the trust and the date of sale.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/23

---

Appeal brought on 3 December 2015 by TV2/Danmark A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission

(Case C-649/15 P)

(2016/C 048/29)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Danmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

Forms of order sought

| 1. | Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds in favour of the Commission in respect of TV2’s principal claim, rule on the case and annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that the measures investigated constituted State aid covered by Article 107(1) TFEU. In the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds in favour of the Commission in respect of TV2’s principal claim, rule on the case and annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that the measures investigated constituted State aid covered by Article 107(1) TFEU. In the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration.

| 2. | Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds in favour of the Commission in respect of the second part of TV2’s alternative claim, rule on the case and annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that the licence fee revenue which, in the years 1997-2002, was transferred to TV2 and then on to the regions, constituted State aid in favour of TV2. In the alternative, refer this part of the case back to the General Court for reconsideration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds in favour of the Commission in respect of the second part of TV2’s alternative claim, rule on the case and annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that the licence fee revenue which, in the years 1997-2002, was transferred to TV2 and then on to the regions, constituted State aid in favour of TV2. In the alternative, refer this part of the case back to the General Court for reconsideration.

| 3. | Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders TV2 to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the Commission’s costs; order the Commission to pay TV2’s costs associated with the proceedings before both the General Court and the Court of Justice. Should the case be referred back to the General Court, a corresponding decision on costs should be made on the referred portion of the case referred back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders TV2 to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the Commission’s costs; order the Commission to pay TV2’s costs associated with the proceedings before both the General Court and the Court of Justice. Should the case be referred back to the General Court, a corresponding decision on costs should be made on the referred portion of the case referred back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | TV2 submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which rejects TV2’s first plea in law and thus TV2’s principal claim is contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU, thereby vitiating that judgment with an error of law. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:






  — | The refusal in the judgment under appeal to accept that the checks carried out by the Rigsrevisionen (National Audit Office) were sufficient to fulfil the fourth Altmark condition is based on a strict, literal application of that condition’s requirement of cost comparison. This is legally wrong. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

TV2 submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which rejects TV2’s first plea in law and thus TV2’s principal claim is contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU, thereby vitiating that judgment with an error of law. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:

—

The refusal in the judgment under appeal to accept that the checks carried out by the Rigsrevisionen (National Audit Office) were sufficient to fulfil the fourth Altmark condition is based on a strict, literal application of that condition’s requirement of cost comparison. This is legally wrong.

| — | Contrary to what the General Court states in the judgment under appeal, the specific nature of TV2’s public service obligations and the retroactive application of the Altmark conditions lead to a situation where there should have been a purposive application of that condition: see the principle in the General Court’s judgment of 12 February 2008 in BUPA, T-289/03, ECLI:EU:T:2008:29, etc. |
| --- | --- |

—

Contrary to what the General Court states in the judgment under appeal, the specific nature of TV2’s public service obligations and the retroactive application of the Altmark conditions lead to a situation where there should have been a purposive application of that condition: see the principle in the General Court’s judgment of 12 February 2008 in BUPA, T-289/03, ECLI:EU:T:2008:29, etc.

| — | The Rigsrevisionen’s ongoing checks to make sure that TV2 was a well-run business ensured that the basic purpose of the fourth Altmark condition was fulfilled and, therefore, in the specific circumstances of the case involving TV2 and in the light of the purposive application of the condition, sufficient to find that the fourth Altmark condition was fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Rigsrevisionen’s ongoing checks to make sure that TV2 was a well-run business ensured that the basic purpose of the fourth Altmark condition was fulfilled and, therefore, in the specific circumstances of the case involving TV2 and in the light of the purposive application of the condition, sufficient to find that the fourth Altmark condition was fulfilled.

| 2. | TV2 further submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which deals with the merits and rejects the second part of TV2’s alternative claim is vitiated by an error of law because it is contrary to fundamental procedural principles. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:






  — | In its statement in defence the Commission had stated it agreed with TV2 on the point that the licence fee revenue which TV2 passed on to the regions in the period 1997-2002 did not constitute State aid in favour of TV2. The General Court thereby ruled ultra petita because it dealt with and rejected the second part of TV2’s alternative claim. The judgment under appeal is therefore vitiated by an error of law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

TV2 further submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which deals with the merits and rejects the second part of TV2’s alternative claim is vitiated by an error of law because it is contrary to fundamental procedural principles. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:

—

In its statement in defence the Commission had stated it agreed with TV2 on the point that the licence fee revenue which TV2 passed on to the regions in the period 1997-2002 did not constitute State aid in favour of TV2. The General Court thereby ruled ultra petita because it dealt with and rejected the second part of TV2’s alternative claim. The judgment under appeal is therefore vitiated by an error of law.

| — | The General Court further ruled on the merits on the basis of its own line of argument. The General Court’s considerations as set out in paragraphs 165-174 of the judgment under appeal have not been argued at any point by either TV2 or the Commission; nor are they to be found in the contested decision. The General Court thereby exceeded the limits of its judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court further ruled on the merits on the basis of its own line of argument. The General Court’s considerations as set out in paragraphs 165-174 of the judgment under appeal have not been argued at any point by either TV2 or the Commission; nor are they to be found in the contested decision. The General Court thereby exceeded the limits of its judicial review.

| — | At the same time the General Court infringed the principle of the right to a fair hearing: see Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it based its decision on pleas and arguments on which the parties to the case had not submitted pleadings. |
| --- | --- |

—

At the same time the General Court infringed the principle of the right to a fair hearing: see Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it based its decision on pleas and arguments on which the parties to the case had not submitted pleadings.

| 3. | Lastly, TV2 submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which deals with the merits and rejects the second part of TV2’s alternative claim (paragraphs 165-174) is vitiated by an error of law because it is based on a clearly incorrect interpretation of Danish law and is contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:






  — | The General Court considers and accords decisive weight to the fact that TV2, as part of fulfilling its duties to distribute regional programmes, received regional programmes from the regions, in return for which the transfer of licence fee revenue was payment for those programmes. This cannot be deduced from the players in the case before the General Court and is clearly contrary to Danish law. The legal test which can be deduced from paragraphs 166, 167 and 171 of the judgment under appeal is therefore substantively met. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Lastly, TV2 submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which deals with the merits and rejects the second part of TV2’s alternative claim (paragraphs 165-174) is vitiated by an error of law because it is based on a clearly incorrect interpretation of Danish law and is contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:

—

The General Court considers and accords decisive weight to the fact that TV2, as part of fulfilling its duties to distribute regional programmes, received regional programmes from the regions, in return for which the transfer of licence fee revenue was payment for those programmes. This cannot be deduced from the players in the case before the General Court and is clearly contrary to Danish law. The legal test which can be deduced from paragraphs 166, 167 and 171 of the judgment under appeal is therefore substantively met.

| — | In paragraphs 166, 167 and the first sentence of paragraph 173 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court refers to a hypothetical scenario as part of its State aid assessment. That scenario is inconceivable in practice and irrelevant to the State aid assessment. The decisive factor in TV2’s case is, in fact, that TV2 did not derive any economic advantage from the transferred licence fee revenue. As a matter of public law, TV2 was obliged to transfer the licence fee revenue to the regions and did, in practice, perform that obligation. The General Court’s decision is therefore contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

In paragraphs 166, 167 and the first sentence of paragraph 173 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court refers to a hypothetical scenario as part of its State aid assessment. That scenario is inconceivable in practice and irrelevant to the State aid assessment. The decisive factor in TV2’s case is, in fact, that TV2 did not derive any economic advantage from the transferred licence fee revenue. As a matter of public law, TV2 was obliged to transfer the licence fee revenue to the regions and did, in practice, perform that obligation. The General Court’s decision is therefore contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/25

---

Appeal brought on 4 December 2015 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 25/09/2015 in Case T-268/10 RENV: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case C-650/15 P)

(2016/C 048/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana, avocat, D. Abrahams, barrister, E. Mullier, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 RENV; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 RENV;

| — | Annul the Contested Act; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Contested Act;

| — | Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants’ application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants’ application for annulment;

| — | Order the Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 RENV which dismissed the Appellants’ action for annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation No. 1907/2006 (1) concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006.

The pleas in law relied on by the Appellants can be summarised as follows:

| 1. | the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation in its interpretation of the definition of ‘intermediates’ in Article 3(15) of the REACH Regulation






  a) | by interpreting the end uses of the synthesised substance as an exclusion criterion contrary to the clear wording of Article 3(15); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation in its interpretation of the definition of ‘intermediates’ in Article 3(15) of the REACH Regulation

a)

by interpreting the end uses of the synthesised substance as an exclusion criterion contrary to the clear wording of Article 3(15);

| b) | by interpreting the definition of ‘intermediates’ in a manner contrary to the purpose of the provisions of the REACH Regulation; and |
| --- | --- |

b)

by interpreting the definition of ‘intermediates’ in a manner contrary to the purpose of the provisions of the REACH Regulation; and

| c) | by failing to assess independently, and relying on irrelevant sections of, Appendix 4 of the ECHA Guidance on Intermediates; |
| --- | --- |

c)

by failing to assess independently, and relying on irrelevant sections of, Appendix 4 of the ECHA Guidance on Intermediates;

| 2. | the General Court breached the duty to state reasons by failing to address the Appellants’ argument that Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation covers Title VII of the REACH Regulation in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the General Court breached the duty to state reasons by failing to address the Appellants’ argument that Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation covers Title VII of the REACH Regulation in its entirety;

| 3. | the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation insofar as it ruled that intermediates are not exempted from Article 59 of the REACH Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

3.

the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation insofar as it ruled that intermediates are not exempted from Article 59 of the REACH Regulation;

| 4. | the General Court erred in law in ruling that the Respondent has not committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into consideration the information in Annex XV of the REACH Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

4.

the General Court erred in law in ruling that the Respondent has not committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into consideration the information in Annex XV of the REACH Regulation;

| 5. | the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the proportionality of the Contested Act; and |
| --- | --- |

5.

the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the proportionality of the Contested Act; and

| 6. | the General Court breached its duty to state reasons by failing to address the less onerous measures put forward by the Appellants. |
| --- | --- |

6.

the General Court breached its duty to state reasons by failing to address the less onerous measures put forward by the Appellants.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC

OJ L 396, p. 1

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek

(Case C-654/15)

(2016/C 048/31)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Länsförsäkringar AB

Defendant: A/S Matek

Questions referred

The questions concern the interpretation and application of Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark where third parties use, without consent, in the course of trade, a sign similar to a Community trade mark (1).

The questions are:

| 1. | Does it affect the proprietor’s exclusive right that, within a period of five years following registration, he has not made genuine use of the Community trade mark in the European Union for goods or services covered by the registration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it affect the proprietor’s exclusive right that, within a period of five years following registration, he has not made genuine use of the Community trade mark in the European Union for goods or services covered by the registration?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, in what circumstances and in what way does that situation affect the exclusive right? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, in what circumstances and in what way does that situation affect the exclusive right?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/27

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission

(Case C-656/15 P)

(2016/C 048/32)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: ved B. Stromsky, T. Maxian Rusche and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

Form of order sought

Set aside the judgment of the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission, in so far as it annuls Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 concerning Danish measures (C 2/03) in favour of TV2/Danmark (1) in so far as that decision finds that advertising revenue from 1995 and 1996 constitutes State aid.

Dismiss the third alternative claim of the applicant at first instance on its merits.

Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court erred by misinterpreting the concept of ‘State resources’ in Article 107(1) TFEU, including the concept of ‘control’, and in failing to provide a proper statement of reasons.

The essential points of the appellant’s arguments put forward in support of its appeal are as follows:

| — | The General Court erred in paragraphs 210 and 211 by failing to recognise that TV2 Reklame’s resources are State resources because TV2 Reklame is a State-owned company; the General Court applied an overly narrow interpretation of the case-law concerning the concept of State resources from State-owned businesses. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in paragraphs 210 and 211 by failing to recognise that TV2 Reklame’s resources are State resources because TV2 Reklame is a State-owned company; the General Court applied an overly narrow interpretation of the case-law concerning the concept of State resources from State-owned businesses.

| — | The General Court erred in law by applying an overly narrow interpretation of the concept of ‘control’ in its assessment of the State’s control over TV2 Reklame’s resources. Similarly, it erred in paragraph 215 by also interpreting too narrowly the concept of ‘control’ in its assessment of the State’s control of the resources in the TV2 Fund. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law by applying an overly narrow interpretation of the concept of ‘control’ in its assessment of the State’s control over TV2 Reklame’s resources. Similarly, it erred in paragraph 215 by also interpreting too narrowly the concept of ‘control’ in its assessment of the State’s control of the resources in the TV2 Fund.

| — | The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment in PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160. That misinterpretation plays a central role in the general Court’s reasons for annulling the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment in PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160. That misinterpretation plays a central role in the general Court’s reasons for annulling the contested decision.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 340, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air Canada v Commission

(Case T-9/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Air Canada (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: S. Kim, H. Bignall, J. Pheasant and T. Capel, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë and N. von Lingen, subsequently by J. Bourke and S. Noë, and lastly by A. Dawes and H. Leupold, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air Canada; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air Canada;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air Canada. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air Canada.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission

(Case T-28/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and C. Giolito, and subsequently by S. Noë, C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Japan Airlines v Commission

(Case T-36/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Japan Airlines Co. Ltd, formerly Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, K. Van Hove, lawyers, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. von Lingen and S. Noë, subsequently by S. Noë, and J. Bourke, and finally by A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant and on Japan Airlines Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Japan Airlines Co. Ltd and Japan Airlines Corp.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Japan Airlines Co. Ltd and Japan Airlines Corp.;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Japan Airlines Co. Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

(Case T-38/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Queensway, Hong Kong, China) (represented initially by D. Vaughan QC, R. Kreisberger, Barrister, B. Bar-Bouyssiere, lawyer, and M. Rees, Solicitor, then by D. Vaughan, R. Kreisberger and M. Rees)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and J. Bourke, and subsequently by A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cathay Pacific Airways. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cathay Pacific Airways.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission

(Case T-39/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cargolux Airlines International SA (Sandweiler, Luxembourg) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and G. Goeteyn, Solicitor, and subsequently by G. Goeteyn and T. Soames, Solicitors, C. Rawnsley, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and by O. Jones and subsequently by S. Love, Barristers, and represented subsequently by N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cargolux Airlines International SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cargolux Airlines International SA;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cargolux Airlines International. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cargolux Airlines International.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission

(Case T-40/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Latam Airlines Group SA, formerly Lan Airlines SA (Santiago, Chile); and Lan Cargo SA (Santiago) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and G. Koleva, and subsequently by G. Koleva and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Latam Airlines Group SA, formerly Lan Airlines SA, and Lan Cargo SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Latam Airlines Group SA, formerly Lan Airlines SA, and Lan Cargo SA;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission

(Case T-43/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Singapore Airlines Ltd (Singapore, Singapore); and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore) (represented initially by J. Kallaugher and J. Poitras, Solicitors, J. Ruiz Calzado and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and subsequently by J. Kallaugher, J. Poitras and J. Ruiz Calzado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and J. Bourke, and subsequently by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and A. Dawes, and lastly by A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by C. Brown, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, for the annulment of or a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Singapore Airlines Ltd and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Singapore Airlines Ltd and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission

(Case T-46/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany); Lufthansa Cargo AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany); and Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented initially by S. Völcker, F. Louis, E. Arsenidou and A. Israel, and subsequently by S. Völcker and J. Orogolas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. Kellerbauer, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by S. Noë and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by J. Anderson, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 1 to 4 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 1 to 4 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG and Swiss International Air Lines AG; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 1 to 4 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG and Swiss International Air Lines AG;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Deutsche Lufthansa, Lufthansa Cargo and Swiss International Air Lines. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Deutsche Lufthansa, Lufthansa Cargo and Swiss International Air Lines.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — British Airways v Commission

(Case T-48/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented initially by K. Lasok QC, R. O’Donoghue, Barrister, and B. Louveaux, Solicitor, and subsequently by R. O’Donoghue, B. Louveaux and J. Turner QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and initially by B. Doherty, and subsequently by A. Bates, Barristers, and represented subsequently by N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by A. Bates)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as, in that decision, the European Commission, first, considered that British Airways plc (i) participated in the refusal to pay commission, (ii) infringed Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport between 22 January 2001 and 1 October 2001, and (iii) participated in infringements of those provisions for freight services performed from Hong Kong (China), Japan, India, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea and Brazil, and, secondly, imposed a fine on it; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as, in that decision, the European Commission, first, considered that British Airways plc (i) participated in the refusal to pay commission, (ii) infringed Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport between 22 January 2001 and 1 October 2001, and (iii) participated in infringements of those provisions for freight services performed from Hong Kong (China), Japan, India, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea and Brazil, and, secondly, imposed a fine on it;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of British Airways. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of British Airways.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-56/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SAS Cargo Group A/S (Kastrup, Denmark); Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden (Stockholm, Sweden); and SAS AB (Stockholm) (represented initially by M. Kofmann, B. Creve, lawyers, I. Forrester QC, J. Killick and G. Forwood, Barristers, and subsequently by M. Kofmann, B. Creve, J. Killick and G. Forwood)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. von Lingen, V. Bottka and S. Noë, and subsequently by V. Bottka and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns SAS Cargo Group A/S, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden and SAS AB; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns SAS Cargo Group A/S, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden and SAS AB;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of SAS Cargo Group, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden and SAS; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of SAS Cargo Group, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden and SAS;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France-KLM v Commission

(Case T-62/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Air France-KLM (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Giolito, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and B. Lebrun, lawyer, and subsequently by C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón, M. Simm and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air France-KLM; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air France-KLM;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air France-KLM; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air France-KLM;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France v Commission

(Case T-63/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Air France SA (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Giolito, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and B. Lebrun, lawyer, and subsequently by C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón, M. Simm and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Société Air France SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Société Air France SA;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Société Air France SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Société Air France SA;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Martinair Holland v Commission

(Case T-67/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and C. Giolito, and subsequently by S. Noë, C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Martinair Holland NV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Martinair Holland NV;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Martinair Holland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Martinair Holland.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-73/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))

(2016/C 048/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Einhell Germany AG (Landau an der Isar, Germany); Hans Einhell Nederlands BV (Breda, Netherlands); Einhell France SAS (Villepinte, France); Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul the contested decisions, for the maintenance in force of the effects of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Einhell Germany AG, Hans Einhell Nederlands BV, Einhell France SAS and Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Einhell Germany AG, Hans Einhell Nederlands BV, Einhell France SAS and Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Polska v Commission

(Case T-75/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))

(2016/C 048/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8826 final, C(2011) 8803 final and K(2011) 8801 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul those decisions, for the maintenance in force of the effects of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8826 final, C(2011) 8803 final and K(2011) 8801 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8826 final, C(2011) 8803 final and K(2011) 8801 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council

(Case T-108/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Product concerned))

(2016/C 048/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J. F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Byrne and finally by E. McGovern, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, B.-R. Killmann and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic); Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH (Paderborn, Germany); Dalmine SpA (Dalmine, Italy); Productos Tubulares, SA (Valle de Trápaga, Spain); Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH (Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA (Roman, Romania); Silcotub SA (Zalău, Romania); Tubos Reunidos Industrial, SL (Amurrio, Spain); V & M Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany); V & M France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France); Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France (Aulnoye-Aymeries, France); voestalpine Tubular GmbH & Co. KG (Kindberg, Austria) (represented by: S. Gubel, lawyer, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel, originating, inter alia, in Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2012 L 357, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application in its entirety;

| 2. | Orders Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO), Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO), Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and those of ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Productos Tubulares, SA, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Silcotub SA, Tubos Reunidos Industrial, SL, V & M Deutschland GmbH, V & M France, Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, and voestalpine Tubular GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO), Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO), Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and those of ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Productos Tubulares, SA, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Silcotub SA, Tubos Reunidos Industrial, SL, V & M Deutschland GmbH, V & M France, Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, and voestalpine Tubular GmbH & Co. KG;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-241/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from the financing - Beef and beef products - Sheepmeat and goatmeat - Tobacco - Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004))

(2016/C 048/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: The Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, S. Papaïoannou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic in the tobacco sector, in respect of claim year 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), so far as it excludes certain expenditure carried out by the Hellenic Republic in the tobacco sector, in respect of claim year 2006;

| 2. | Dismisses the action for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action for the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM (DAISY and MARGARITAS)

(Joined Cases T-381/13 and T-382/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word marks DAISY and MARGARITAS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Partial refusal to register - No distinctive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 048/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by: P. Testa, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Re:

Actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2013 (Cases R 427/2012-1 and R 430/2012-1), concerning applications for registration of the word sign DAISY and the word sign MARGARITAS as Community trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 April 2013 (Cases R 427/2012-1 and R 430/2012-1), in so far as they rejected the applications for registration of the word sign DAISY and the word sign MARGARITAS as Community trade marks in respect of the following goods: ‘confectionery, pastries, sweets, soft caramels, marshmallows, caramels, chewing gum, gelatine (confectionery), liquorice, lollipops, toffee, pastilles, sugar, chocolate, cocoa’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 April 2013 (Cases R 427/2012-1 and R 430/2012-1), in so far as they rejected the applications for registration of the word sign DAISY and the word sign MARGARITAS as Community trade marks in respect of the following goods: ‘confectionery, pastries, sweets, soft caramels, marshmallows, caramels, chewing gum, gelatine (confectionery), liquorice, lollipops, toffee, pastilles, sugar, chocolate, cocoa’;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Intercontinental Great Brands (TRIDENT PURE)

(Case T-491/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TRIDENT PURE - Earlier Community, national, international and Benelux figurative and word marks PURE WHITE, mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH, PURE, PURE FRESH, mentos PURE FRESH and mentos PURE WHITE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 048/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (East Hanover, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: M. Haak, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2013 (Case R 706/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV and Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Chart v EEAS

(Case T-138/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Local member of staff assigned to the EU delegation in Egypt - Expiry of contract - Failure by the EU delegation to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the official to the social security services of the Egyptian administration and to subsequently regularise the latter’s situation in that regard - Limitation - Continuing damage - Partial inadmissibility - Principle of good administration - Reasonable period of time - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Sufficiently serious infringement of a legal rule conferring rights on individuals - Quantifiable damage - Causal link))

(2016/C 048/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Randa Chart (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

ACTION for damages in respect of loss allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the failure by the EU delegation in Cairo (Egypt), following her resignation, to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the applicant to the social security services of the Egyptian administration and to subsequently regularise her situation in that regard.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay damages amounting to EUR 25 000 to Mrs Randa Chart; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay damages amounting to EUR 25 000 to Mrs Randa Chart;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mrs Chart to bear two-tenths of her own costs and two-tenths of the costs incurred by the EEAS; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mrs Chart to bear two-tenths of her own costs and two-tenths of the costs incurred by the EEAS;

| 4. | Orders the EEAS to bear eight-tenths of its own costs and eight-tenths of the costs incurred by Mrs Chart. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the EEAS to bear eight-tenths of its own costs and eight-tenths of the costs incurred by Mrs Chart.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríguez (Kerashot)

(Case T-356/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Kerashot - Earlier national figurative mark K KERASOL - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal))

(2016/C 048/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CareAbout GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: José Luis Florido Rodríguez (Seville, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2014 (Case R 1569/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between José Luis Florido Rodriguez and CareAbout GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CareAbout GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CareAbout GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Sweden v Commission

(Case T-521/14) (1)

((Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Action for failure to act - Specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties - Failure by the Commission to adopt delegated acts - Duty to act))

(2016/C 048/54)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, K. Sparrman and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec, acting as Agent, and M. Johansson, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and N. Lyshøj, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: M. Bulterman and M. Noort, and subsequently by: M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent); European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and P. Schonard, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and A. Norberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt delegated acts concerning the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the European Commission, by failing to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the European Commission, by failing to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt)

(Case T-63/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 048/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 (Case R 2560/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on pants)

(Case T-64/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on pants - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 048/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 (Case R 2563/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of two parallel stripes on pants as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD)

(Case T-128/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark RED RIDING HOOD - Earlier national and international word marks ROTKÄPPCHEN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 048/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Freyburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Lewis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Alberto Ruiz Moncayo (Entrena, Spain) (represented by E. Valentín Prades, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 (Case R 1012/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH and Alberto Ruiz Moncayo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 December 2015 — POA v Commission

(Case T-584/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Publication of an application for registration of a protected designation of origin - ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2016/C 048/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pagkiprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd (POA) (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the measure adopted by the Commission dated 28 July 2015 entitled ‘Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs’ (OJ 2015 C 246, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — E-Control v ACER

(Case T-671/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Opinion on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of cross-border electricity transmission capacity - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Infringement of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 048/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Opinion of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators No 09/2015 of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15), and the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/52

---

Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission

(Case T-603/15)

(2016/C 048/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: W. Trautner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2015 by which the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in level 1 was negatively assessed and she was not admitted to level 2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2015 by which the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in level 1 was negatively assessed and she was not admitted to level 2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests the implicit negative decision of the Commission on the administrative complaint against the decision of ERCEA of 5 June 2015 to negatively assess the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in the context of the calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2016 under Horizon 2020 of the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — ‘Horizon 2020’ and the decision not to admit the applicant to level 2.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of transparency
  The applicant claims that ERCEA’s actions infringe the principle of transparency. The assessment bases were neither set out in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ nor consistently stated in the decision of 5 June 2015. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of transparency

The applicant claims that ERCEA’s actions infringe the principle of transparency. The assessment bases were neither set out in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ nor consistently stated in the decision of 5 June 2015.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality
  In addition, it is claimed that, as a result of its undifferentiated assessment and attacks on the applicant’s economic reputation, the Commission also infringes the principle of equality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality

In addition, it is claimed that, as a result of its undifferentiated assessment and attacks on the applicant’s economic reputation, the Commission also infringes the principle of equality.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/53

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Psara v Parliament

(Case T-639/15)

(2016/C 048/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maria Psara (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8602 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8602 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/54

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Kristan v Parliament

(Case T-640/15)

(2016/C 048/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tina Kristan (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8656 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8656 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/55

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Malle v Parliament

(Case T-641/15)

(2016/C 048/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tanja Malle (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8324 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8324 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/56

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Cieśla v Parliament

(Case T-642/15)

(2016/C 048/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wojciech Cieśla (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8463 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8463 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/57

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Dahllof v Parliament

(Case T-643/15)

(2016/C 048/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Staffan Dahllof (Kastrup, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8678 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8678 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/58

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Reuter v Parliament

(Case T-644/15)

(2016/C 048/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delphine Reuter (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8627 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8627 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/59

---

Action brought on 13/11/2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament

(Case T-645/15)

(2016/C 048/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8682 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8682 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/60

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Karanikas v Parliament

(Case T-646/15)

(2016/C 048/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Harry Karanikas (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8594 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8594 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/61

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament

(Case T-647/15)

(2016/C 048/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Crina Boros (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8554 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8554 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/62

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

(Case T-648/15)

(2016/C 048/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8361 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8361 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/63

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Toth v Parliament

(Case T-649/15)

(2016/C 048/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Balazs Toth (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8490 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8490 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/64

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Knus-Galán v Parliament

(Case T-650/15)

(2016/C 048/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Minna Knus-Galán (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8551 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8551 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/65

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tchobanov v Parliament

(Case T-651/15)

(2016/C 048/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Atanas Tchobanov (Le Plessis Robinson, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8659 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8659 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/66

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Mulvad v Parliament

(Case T-653/15)

(2016/C 048/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nils Mulvad (Risskov, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8732 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8732 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/67

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament

(Case T-654/15)

(2016/C 048/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8681 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8681 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/68

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — van der Parre v Parliament

(Case T-655/15)

(2016/C 048/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hugo van der Parre (Huizen, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8334 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8334 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/69

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baggi v Parliament

(Case T-656/15)

(2016/C 048/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guia Baggi (Florence, Italy) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8552 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8552 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/70

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament

(Case T-657/15)

(2016/C 048/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Crina Boros (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8553 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8553 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/71

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — García Rey v Parliament

(Case T-658/15)

(2016/C 048/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcos García Rey (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8661 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8661 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/72

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Hunter v Parliament

(Case T-659/15)

(2016/C 048/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mark Lee Hunter (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8684 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8684 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/73

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Clerix v Parliament

(Case T-660/15)

(2016/C 048/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kristof Clerix (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8327 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8327 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/74

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Araujo v Parliament

(Case T-661/15)

(2016/C 048/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rui Araujo (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8663 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8663 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/75

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Delić v Parliament

(Case T-662/15)

(2016/C 048/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Anuška Delić (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8344 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8344 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| — | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| — | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| — | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| — | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/76

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

(Case T-663/15)

(2016/C 048/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8360 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8360 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/77

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Borg v Parliament

(Case T-664/15)

(2016/C 048/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jacob Borg (St. Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8486 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8486 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/78

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

(Case T-665/15)

(2016/C 048/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8305 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8305 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/79

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Bačelić v Parliament

(Case T-666/15)

(2016/C 048/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Matilda Bačelić (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision A(2015)8672 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision A(2015)8672 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/80

---

Action brought on 09 October 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA

(Case T-669/15)

(2016/C 048/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany), Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the appeal admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency concerning the inclusion of the company BASF on the list of active substances and suppliers provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency concerning the inclusion of the company BASF on the list of active substances and suppliers provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1); and

| — | order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submit that, by allowing a company to be included on the list provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in respect of a given substance, ECHA has failed to apply the law. Its failures in that regard are founded on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that ECHA has misapplied the rules regarding the requirement that the company submit a complete dossier under Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that ECHA has misapplied the rules regarding the requirement that the company submit a complete dossier under Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA has treated companies, which were in the same situation, differently. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA has treated companies, which were in the same situation, differently.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that contrary to the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, ECHA has failed to ensure that there is a level playing field between those companies that have participated in the review programme of the given substance and those that have been free-riders. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that contrary to the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, ECHA has failed to ensure that there is a level playing field between those companies that have participated in the review programme of the given substance and those that have been free-riders.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, p. 1).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/81

---

Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission

(Case T-683/15)

(2016/C 048/89)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern (represented by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the Federal Republic of Germany granted State aid unlawfully in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out by the Land of Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria, which is during the period starting 1 January 2007 incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the Federal Republic of Germany granted State aid unlawfully in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out by the Land of Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria, which is during the period starting 1 January 2007 incompatible with the internal market;

| — | annul Articles 2 to 4 of the contested decision in so far as they order recovery of the aid with interest in respect of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 2 to 4 of the contested decision in so far as they order recovery of the aid with interest in respect of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU and of Article 6(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1)

  Within the context of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the alleged aid from the Land budget was not covered by the opening decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU and of Article 6(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1)

Within the context of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the alleged aid from the Land budget was not covered by the opening decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law: No State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
  The applicant asserts that the dairies in connection with the funding of the milk quality tests would not receive State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because they were not given any selective advantage. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: No State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

The applicant asserts that the dairies in connection with the funding of the milk quality tests would not receive State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because they were not given any selective advantage.

| 3. | Third plea in law (in the alternative): No infringement of the notification requirement
  The applicant submits that the measures must be regarded as ‘existing aid’. The recovery therefore infringes Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law (in the alternative): No infringement of the notification requirement

The applicant submits that the measures must be regarded as ‘existing aid’. The recovery therefore infringes Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law (in the alternative): An error of law was made in dismissing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law (in the alternative): An error of law was made in dismissing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU

| 5. | Fifth plea in law (in the alternative): The order for recovery of the aid infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law (in the alternative): The order for recovery of the aid infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/82

---

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-686/15)

(2016/C 048/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 915

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2517/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 915 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705; |
| --- | --- |

—

consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 915 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

| — | order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/83

---

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava/OHMI — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-687/15)

(2016/C 048/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings the Board of Appeal before

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 816

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2757/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 816 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705; |
| --- | --- |

—

consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 816 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

| — | order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/84

---

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-689/15)

(2016/C 048/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 899

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2015 in Case R 2491/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 899 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705; |
| --- | --- |

—

consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 899 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

| — | order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/85

---

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé)

(Case T-690/15)

(2016/C 048/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word element ‘Cremcaffé’ — Community trade mark No 11 407 021

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2586/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 407 021 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705; |
| --- | --- |

—

consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 407 021 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

| — | order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/86

---

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-691/15)

(2016/C 048/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 782

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2756/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 782 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705; |
| --- | --- |

—

consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 782 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

| — | order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/86

---

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT)

(Case T-703/15)

(2016/C 048/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Go Sport (Sassenage, France) (represented by: G. Arbant and E. Henry-Mayer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Design Go Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘GO SPORT’ — Community trade mark application No 5 144 811

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2015 in Case R 569/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare admissible the Appeal R 569/2015-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the Appeal R 569/2015-2;

| — | return the case to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

return the case to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/87

---

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission

(Case T-101/13) (1)

(2016/C 048/96)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/88

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-45/11) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2009 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - Refusal of promotion - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 048/97)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2009 in so far as it does not award him A or B+ and does not propose him for promotion to Function D.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 22 September 2010; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 22 September 2010;

| 2. | Holds that there is no need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2009, the decision of 25 March 2010 refusing promotion or ‘all connected, consequent and prior acts’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

Holds that there is no need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2009, the decision of 25 March 2010 refusing promotion or ‘all connected, consequent and prior acts’

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr D Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr D Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 35.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/88

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-37/12) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Investigation procedure - Report of the Investigation Panel - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint - Annulment - Action for compensation))

(2016/C 048/98)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, on the one hand, of the letter of the President of the EIB by which he rejected, following the opinion of the ‘Dignity at work’ Panel, the applicant’s complaint concerning psychological harassment and, on the other, the findings of the opinion of that Panel in so far as it does not find any facts of psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 20 December 2011 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 20 December 2011 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 24.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/89

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-82/12) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - New 2007 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - Refusal of promotion - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 048/99)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, laywer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Adjudication Panel’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the result of the second overall appraisal of his performance for 2007.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 15 February 2012; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 15 February 2012;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to rule on the pleas seeking the annulment of the new staff report for 2007; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to rule on the pleas seeking the annulment of the new staff report for 2007;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 18.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/90

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-55/13) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2011 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 048/100)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, laywer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the appraisal of the applicant’s performance for 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 18 December 2012; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 18 December 2012;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to rule on the pleas seeking the annulment of the staff report for 2011 and all the connected, consequent and prior acts; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to rule on the pleas seeking the annulment of the staff report for 2011 and all the connected, consequent and prior acts;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013, p. 26.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/90

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-104/13)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Investigation procedure - Report of the Investigation Panel - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint - Annulment - Action for compensation))

(2016/C 048/101)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, on the one hand, of the letter of the President of the EIB by which he firstly failed to adopt any measure concerning the psychological harassment suffered by the applicant for 20 years; secondly, justified all the facts complained of and, thirdly, requires the applicant to work with a ‘mentor’ and ‘business partner’ and, on the other, the opinion of the ‘Dignity at work’ Panel of 14 March 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 29 April 2013 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 29 April 2013 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/91

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-9/14) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2012 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - Refusal of promotion - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 048/102)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, firstly, for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2012 as regards the sections concerning ‘appraisal’, ‘assessment’ and ‘setting of objectives for 2013’ and in so far as it does not propose that he be promoted to Function D and, next, annulment of the note to staff No 722 of 5 December 2012 and the 2012 Guide to Staff Appraisal Procedure or a declaration that they are inapplicable and, secondly, a finding of psychological harassment of the applicant. Finally, application for an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 23 October 2013; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 23 October 2013;

| 2. | Holds that there is no need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2012 and all connected, consequent and prior acts; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Holds that there is no need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2012 and all connected, consequent and prior acts;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr D Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr D Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014, p. 44.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/92

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Bowles v ECB

(Case F-94/14) (1)

((Civil service - ECB staff - Members of the Staff Committee - Remuneration - Salary - Additional increase in salary - Eligibility))

(2016/C 048/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini, S. Camilleri and M. López Torres, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase, in the context of the annual revision of salaries and bonuses for 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 25 February 2014 not to grant an additional salary increase for 2014 to Mr Bowles; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 25 February 2014 not to grant an additional salary increase for 2014 to Mr Bowles;

| 2) | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3) | The European Central Bank shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Bowles. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The European Central Bank shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Bowles.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12/1/2015, p. 49.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/92

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Seigneur v ECB

(Case F-95/14) (1)

((Civil service - ECB staff - Members of the Staff Committee - Remuneration - Salary - Additional increase in salary - Eligibility))

(2016/C 048/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Seigneur (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini, D. Camilleri Podestà and M. López Torres, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase, in the context of the annual revision of salaries and bonuses for 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 25 February 2014 not to grant an additional salary increase for 2014 to Mr Seigneur; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 25 February 2014 not to grant an additional salary increase for 2014 to Mr Seigneur;

| 2) | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3) | The European Central Bank shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Seigneur. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The European Central Bank shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Seigneur.

---

(1)  OJ C 24/11/2014, p. 63.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/93

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Clarke, Dickmanns and Papathanasiou v OHIM

(Joined cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary staff - OHIM staff - Fixed-term contract including a termination clause - Clause terminating a contract if the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Date of effect of the termination clause - OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 open competitions))

(2016/C 048/105)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns and Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

First, the action for annulment of the defendant’s decision to apply in the context of the open competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 the clause contained in the applicants’ contracts of employment, which provides for the termination of the contract in the event of their failing the next open competition for their function groups with the specialisation ‘industrial property’, and, secondly, the claim that OHIM be ordered to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage and material damage caused to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions.

| 2. | Declares that Ms Clarke, Ms Papathanasiou and Ms Dickmanns shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay half the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Clarke, Ms Papathanasiou and Ms Dickmanns shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay half the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

| 3. | Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) shall bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) shall bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 50, p. 51 and p. 52.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/94

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 17 December 2015 — T v Commission

(Case F-134/14) (1)

((Civil service - Social security - Occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Causation - Claim for damages for the non-material harm suffered as a result of the delay taken by the institution to acknowledge the occupational origin of the sickness - Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time - Non-material damage))

(2016/C 048/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: T (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents, and subsequently by C. Ehrbar, acting as Agent)

Re:

The application to annul the Commission’s decision to exclude the existence of harm arising from the delay taken by the Commission to establish the occupational origin of the applicant’s sickness and to pay her the amount of EUR 2 000 only as compensation for the uncertainty as regards recognition of the occupational origin of her illness and the claim for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay T the amount of EUR 5 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay T the amount of EUR 5 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred T. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred T.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2/2/2015, p. 53.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/95

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — DE v EMA

(Case F-135/14) (1)

((Civil service - EMA staff - Placement on ‘non-active status’ - Act adversely affecting an official or staff member - Right to be heard - Infringement))

(2016/C 048/107)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: S. Marino, T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the EMA’s decision to suspend the applicant from duty and a request for compensation for the non-material harm which he claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 31 January 2014 by which the European Medicines Agency placed DE on ‘non-active status’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 31 January 2014 by which the European Medicines Agency placed DE on ‘non-active status’;

| 2. | Orders the European Medicines Agency to pay DE the sum of EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Medicines Agency to pay DE the sum of EUR 10 000;

| 3. | Orders the European Medicines Agency to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by DE. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Medicines Agency to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by DE.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19/1/2015, p. 50.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/95

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Guittet v Commission

(Case F-141/14) (1)

((Civil service - Former official - Social security - Payment of medical expenses - Management of the medical file by the Commission - Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Non-contractual liability of the European Union))

(2016/C 048/108)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christian Guittet (Cannes, France) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and T. S. Bohr, acting as Agents, and C. Mélotte, lawyer, and subsequently by T.S. Bohr, acting as Agent, and C. Mélotte, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the claim for damages due to an administrative fault committed by the Commission, responsible for the medical file of the applicant, who was the victim of a serious accident, and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Mr Guittet shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Guittet shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 46.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/96

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Jäger-Waldau v Commission

(Case F-17/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Appraisal - Appraisal report - Request for amendment - Refusal))

(2016/C 048/109)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arnulf Jäger-Waldau (Laveno, Italy) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Berscheid, acting as Agent)

Re:

Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision not to amend the applicant’s 2013 appraisal report.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Declares that Mr Jäger-Waldau shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Jäger-Waldau shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015, p. 40.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/96

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — De Loecker v EEAS

(Case F-34/15) (1)

((Civil service - EEAS staff - Temporary staff - Psychological harassment - Articles 12a and 24b of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Rejection - Request to open an administrative investigation - Right to be heard - Infringement))

(2016/C 048/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 14 April 2014 by which the European External Action Service rejected the request for assistance under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union made by Mr De Loecker; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 14 April 2014 by which the European External Action Service rejected the request for assistance under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union made by Mr De Loecker;

| 2. | Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Loecker. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Loecker.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 25.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/97

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Bonazzi v Commission

(Case F-88/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion exercise 2014 - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directorates-General and the services - Omission of the applicant’s name - Whether the list of officials proposed for promotion may be challenged before the Joint Promotion Committee - Failure to define a position by the Joint Promotion Committee - Consideration of comparative merits made by the appointing authority alone))

(2016/C 048/111)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Matteo Bonazzi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Beradis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AD 12) in the European Commission’s promotion exercise 2014 and the claim for damages for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Mr Bonazzi shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Bonazzi shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24. 8.2015, p. 61.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/98

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-128/11) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2010 staff report - Contested - Internal procedures - Conditions - Withdrawal - Action - Lack of locus standi - Reasonable time - Failure to comply - Manifestly inadmissible))

(2016/C 048/112)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, laywer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application seeking, firstly, annulment of the e-mail messages and decisions of the EIB concerning the administrative procedure relating to the applicant’s performance appraisal for 2010, secondly, annulment of the decision whereby the President of the EIB refused to instigate the settlement procedure before the Conciliation Board, thirdly, annulment of the applicant’s annual appraisal for 2010 in so far as it does not award him ‘exceptional performance’ or ‘very good performance’ and does not propose his promotion to Function D and, finally, an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage sustained.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 21.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/98

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — López Cabeza v Commission

(Case F-76/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/248/13 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Insufficient mark in the assessment centre tests - Action for annulment - Breach of the competition notice - Illegality of a test))

(2016/C 048/113)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Alfonso López Cabeza (Valladolid, Spain) (represented by: G. Suárez de Castro and M. Orman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Gattinara)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/248/13.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and is ordered to pay all the costs incurred by Mr López Cabeza. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and is ordered to pay all the costs incurred by Mr López Cabeza.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 30.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/99

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council

(Case F-118/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts - Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities - Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities - Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure - No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 048/114)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Wolfgang Bärwinkel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Council decisions on the classification of officials in grades AD 9 to AD 14 occupying posts identified as holding special responsibilities in the type of post ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ before 31 December 2015 and not placing the applicant among the officials so classified.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26/1/2015, p. 48.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/100

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 December 2015 — Probst v Commission

(Case F-136/14) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Former parliamentary assistant - Commission’s decision to grant the expatriation allowance to former parliamentary assistants as of the date of publication of the information given to staff - Judgments annulling a measure - Substantial new facts - Limited temporal effect - Res judicata - Administrative decisions which have become final - Equal treatment))

(2016/C 048/115)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Norbert Probst (Genval, Belgium) (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, Agents, and subsequently T.S. Bohr, Agent)

Re:

Application by the applicant for annulment of the Commission’s decision granting him, with retrospective effect, the expatriation allowance, in so far as the retrospective effect extends merely to 1 September 2013, and the applicant claims that the Commission should grant him that allowance as of his recruitment by the Commission on 1 July 1999.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Probst shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Probst shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p. 54.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/100

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Di Marzio v Council

(Case F-24/15) (1)

((Civil service - Contractual agent - Function group I - Reclassification of a contract into a contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite term at Grade AST 3, AST 4 or AST 5 or into a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite term in function group III - Articles 2, 3a, 3b, 80 and 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 048/116)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Antony Di Marzio (Limelette, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for reclassification of his contract as a member of the contract staff in function group I into a contract as a member of the temporary staff or, alternatively, into a contract as a member of the contract staff in function group III, and the claim for compensation for the non-material and material damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Di Marzio shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Di Marzio shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 127 of 20/4/2015, p. 43.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/101

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 December 2015 — Van der Veen v Europol

(Case F-45/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Europol staff - Member of the temporary staff - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Europol’s refusal to sign a contract for an indefinite period - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly inadmissible))

(2016/C 048/117)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mark Van der Veen (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann, J. Arnould and C. Falmagne, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s implied decision not to follow up the applicant’s request for a contract for an indefinite period.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Van der Veen shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Van der Veen shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 34.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/102

---

Action brought on 23 November 2015 — ZZ v EASA

(Case F-144/15)

(2016/C 048/118)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency not to extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of Employment of 15 January 2015 no tot extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of Employment of 15 January 2015 no tot extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year;

| — | Order the EASA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EASA to pay the costs.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/102

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — Diamantopoulos v EEAS

(Case F-30/15) (1)

(2016/C 048/119)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4/5/2015, p. 50.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/102

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — FW v Commission

(Case F-58/15) (1)

(2016/C 048/120)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 47.

---

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/102

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — Morin v Commission

(Case F-129/15) (1)

(2016/C 048/121)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14/12/2015, p. 44.

---